So “wine” in a Biblical sense is not to be compared to today's distillery-produced alcoholic drinks. Jesus did not turn the water into intoxicating wine at the marriage feast (His first miracle), lest He be responsible for people getting drunk. “Wine” in the Holy Bible has over a dozen different meanings, which includes natural fruit juice. Only a beer-loving-fool would dare claim that Jesus was a beer-loving-Savior. Proverbs 20:1 teaches that “WINE IS A MOCKER.” The Lord was no fool. Young people, run from alcohol.
46 comments
"the master of the banquet tasted the water that had been turned into wine. He did not realize where it had come from, though the servants who had drawn the water knew. Then he called the bridegroom aside 10 and said, “Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now.”"
The cheaper wine later trick only works in the context of alcohol. If it were grape juice they would still be aware they were drinking shitty grape juice.
As usual of course there is a kernel of truth - heavily watered wine was safer, and probably tastier, than plain water, and was drunk with no intention of getting pissed.
what Kuno said; store fruit juice in leather sacks, in ancient Palestine, it ferments. guaran-fucking-teed.
that said, DJS may have a point --- it's unlikely any Jesus of Nazareth would've drank much beer. that seems to've been an Egyptian thing, at the time; Palestine, like most of Rome's holdings, was apparently wine-drinking country.
(even to this day, the cultural breakdown between wine and beer/vodka as the poison of choice follows geographical borders that echo the long gone Roman empire's frontiers. sure, that might be coincidence...)
The very next few sentences of the passage describe the host commenting on the quality of the wine. If it were just grape juice what were they supposed to be drinking later, watered-down fruit juice? Makes no sense, as there is no need to water down fruit juice.
Logic is your friend. It prevents you from making dumb shit up because you disapprove of alcohol.
Hmm. Strange that, before the 19th century, not even the most deranged fundies had any problem at all with the idea of the wine being alcoholic. Why? Because, before the 19th century, nobody in the Christian world thought the worse of drinking beer or wine as a safer alternative to water. This argument is entirely a product of the temperance movement. So, to borrow Malingspann's phrase, it's not so much Semantics for Jesus as Semantics for Victorian Sensibilities. This explains much of DJS's thinking; in essence - and beside the paranoia and the conspiracy theories - he's a conservative Victorian adrift in the 21st century.
And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders and went backwards, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness. And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.
In the letter to the Ephesians, the writer says "Be not drunk with wine". The Greek word the writer uses is oinos, which specifically refers to the fermented beverage we know as wine. In the passage that David Stewart cites, the writer says that Jesus turned water into oinos. In other words, Jesus turned water into the same stuff that the writer of Ephesians says not to get drunk on. That doesn't sound like Welch's grape juice to me.
I once had a fundie friend make this very same claim. To which my response is, how do you know they used the "fruit juice" meaning for that word when writing the bible and not "alcoholic drink?" That's one problem I have with the "lost in translation" defense of bible passages, they always claim that X meaning was used and never Y, but you have to take their word for it.
If you read the Canaan wedding story, after Jesus turned water into wine it is mentioned how they normally served the best wine first, but in this case, they saved the best wine for last. The reason they served the best wine first is because once the guests have had a little to drink they wouldn't notice or care that the lesser vintages were being served later. Partially because alcohol has an anesthetic property on the mouth.
And frankly, in a Mideast country during a time without refrigeration and potassium sorbate, it was impossible to prevent fruit juice from turning into wine in the first place.
Sure Davie sure. Here is the thing, before people figured out how to sterilize water they made alcoholic beverages which were safer to drink then the water in many cases. Alcohol created civilization.
Anyway the bible is not agianst alcohol its agianst abusing alcohol. Just because a person drinks does not mean he or she drinks to the point where they can't control themselves or pass out or some other incident. Many people can control how much they drink and when they drink. They are not drunkards and the bible says nothing bad about them.
Davie you claim to be a biblical literalist but here you are rewriting the bible to fit your own beliefs.
@ Doubting Thomas
In translating Biblical terms, I think you need to know on whose authority they are making the statement. Fundies often rely only on biblical sources and one gets the feeling that they translate passages the way that suits themselves. Respectable Biblical scholars take advantage of the fact that Greek was the lingua franca of the Eastern Mediterranean and the comparatively large literature that exists in the language from that time. Then they look at the way words are used in other contexts. Here, contemporary translations, both from Greek and into Greek, are particularly useful. With Hebrew, it is a bit more problematic because the sources are older, fewer, and there is less non-biblical literature; even here, however, grammars, lexicons, rabbinical rulings and debates are also useful as well as translations, especially into Greek and Aramaic.
@Nomen Nescio:(even to this day, the cultural breakdown between wine and beer/vodka as the poison of choice follows geographical borders that echo the long gone Roman empire's frontiers. sure, that might be coincidence...) "
U wot m8? image
@Kuno
Magic. The book is full of it. Once you say "this fantasy setting has magic", you get get away with almost anything. And if Rowling has shown us anything, it's that fantasy magic doesn't even need to be consistent between books.
Um... so let me get this straight: If the Bible says something you don't like, you are free to disregard the text and decide it means something else entirely.
And the hypocrisy chain is complete.
The book does say not to drink to excess. Remember those last two words, as they are not only in there, but in there in that context. This (and dehydration) is why there are hangovers.
Drinking some extra whiskey tonight for this one...
So, the Bible is 100% literal truth, except for when it isn't. It's also not open to interpretation, except for when it is.
I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning.
So, things are not always what they seem. So, David J. Stewart is not in fact a lying pervert with delusions of sanity. He is not, nor has he ever been, an abusive sexual offender. He does not delight in being an arse for the sake of, as it were, hearing his own pompous canting bollucks. He is definitely a twat though. A prating knob-head who can spittle fleck and type at the same time. I suppose Goddiddled it.
“Wine” in the Holy Bible has over a dozen different meanings, which includes natural fruit juice.
Without refrigeration or pasteurizing, there's no such thing as alcohol-free fruit juice unless it was just squeezed within the last few days. Besides, a guest said of Jesus' wine "Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now." Meaning they normally put out the good wine when everyone is still sober, then the cheap stuff after everyone is too tipsy to tell the difference or care. But Jesus' wine was the good stuff. I don't think people who had been drinking wine would have called grape juice the "good wine"
@ Pule Thamex
"I suppose Goddiddled it."
Of course he did. You've heard of the Alleg-ed Virgin Mary, right? They sold daughters off at 14 and younger in those days.
When the KJV says something, it means it literally. Except when it says wine. Then it needs to reinterpreted to mean something else.
Congrats Dave. You are absolutely no different than the people you criticize for picking and choosing from the Bible and only believing what they want to believe. You are no different than the Christian who dismisses the Adam and Eve story as an allegory. You have simply picked and chosen different pieces.
"“Wine” in the Holy Bible has over a dozen different meanings, which includes natural fruit juice"
Robinson's Squash'd :
image
Just a quick squirt to a glass or bottle of water.
And you too can become Jesus!
You do realise that Prohibition - once an amendment in the US Constitution, no less - ceased to exist in 1933 do you not, o Davey-boy? It sure lasted a long time too: barely thirteen years.
Beer was literally a lifesaver to ancient civilisations: Babylon. Egypt. Sumeria. Read a book, DJS.
Romans 13:1-5. Also 1 Timothy 5:23.
@Amadan
Use of Al 'Pint for the fella, glass of white wine, fruit based drink for the lady' Murray (Pub Landlord). Your argument is valid b^_^d
Oh, and as Al proves here, God is [i]British[/i], Davey-boy.
Jesus did not turn the water into intoxicating wine at the marriage feast
This is nothing new and not a David J. Stewart thing. The Southern Baptists have been whistling this tune since day one. The same with women wearing pants. This is part of the Southern Baptist "I act like Jesus because Jesus acts like me" mentality.
Davey Boy, just about the only means of getting safe drinking water was to put an alcoholic drink in it back in those days.
So either everyone at the wedding had a little fun, or they all got parasites. Which do you prefer?
"So “wine” in a Biblical sense is not to be compared to today's distillery-produced alcoholic drinks."
PROTIP: if it has been distilled, it is no longer wine. I don't even drink and I know that...
> So “wine” in a Biblical sense is not to be compared to today's distillery-produced alcoholic drinks.
Wine shouldn't be compared to distilled drinks in any other sense either.
Anyway, until fairly recently, wine and beer were the safe drinking choices because water was frequently contaminated and alcohol kills the bacteria... but of course everyone knows this.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
