Jesus the alcoholic

[AllieBaba]

That's pretty funny. Why?

Have no idea. I've heard it said that it was a way to de-value her during a time when women had little value.

Mary was extremely important to Jesus and his ministry. He appeared to the three Marys (Mary his mother, Mary her sister (probably a sister-in-law) and Mary Magdalene before he appeared to any of the disciples. The Marys were the only ones who stayed with him until the end. They were very, very important and women were treated equally by Jesus and that didn't make everybody happy.

 

[Yurt]

Interesting enough sermon. But I'm betting that churchofchrist discourages alcohol, yes?

it was a celebration.... they were waiting for wine. if it was a miracle and not simply harvesting and squeezing some grapes, then I'd say it WAS wine... assuming you believe that it happened. ;o)

i have no idea their slant, do you dispute their findings, if so why? there were actually quite a few google links that supported the theory that the wine was in fact non-alcoholic. i would also make the argument that the wine had no time to ferment, then again, Jesus being God could have instantly made fermented wine, but somehow, i doubt it. do you dispute the fact that "new wine" referred to fresh pressed grapes?

 

[AllieBaba]

I think it was alcoholic. THere's specific reference made where somebody says to Jesus that generally at feasts the "good wine" is set out, and then once everyone has been drinking a while, the bad wine is substituted.

But Mary asked Jesus to provide wine when the wine ran out (and he argued with her saying it wasn't his time yet...and then did it anyway. Which smacks to me of every son's relationship with every mother ever on this earth, lol.) and then somebody said to Jesus, "usually the good wine is served first...but you have saved the good wine for last".

People drank wine then. People drink now. But drunkenness then, as now, is something to avoid. The NT specifically advises against it because you quite literally don't want to be too drunk to notice when Jesus returns and calls the saints home. It would really suck to be passed out and miss that call.

 

[Ravi]

I think it was alcoholic. THere's specific reference made where somebody says to Jesus that generally at feasts the "good wine" is set out, and then once everyone has been drinking a while, the bad wine is substituted.

But Mary asked Jesus to provide wine when the wine ran out (and he argued with her saying it wasn't his time yet...and then did it anyway. Which smacks to me of every son's relationship with every mother ever on this earth, lol.) and then somebody said to Jesus, "usually the good wine is served first...but you have saved the good wine for last".

People drank wine then. People drink now. But drunkenness then, as now, is something to avoid. The NT specifically advises against it because you quite literally don't want to be too drunk to notice when Jesus returns and calls the saints home. It would really suck to be passed out and miss that call.

Not to mention there was probably no way to produce non-alcoholic wine.

 

[Diuretic]

How do you know he didn't?

Because since he didn't have to fight in the trenches he didn't need his hair cut short and didn't need to shave his beard.

 

[Diuretic]

No doubt models paid by Leonardo.

They all look like pre-Raphaelites.

 

[Diuretic]

Historically speaking, not a big fan of chicks.

I dunno, what about the Marian tradition?

 

[Diuretic]

On the wine. A couple of hours north of me there's a winery that makes sacramental wine as well as the usual wine, it's been run by the Jesuits since the middle of the 19th Century. The sacramental wine is used all over Australia and some is exported for use in the church. The regular wine is absolutely top class and if you want a bottle of port from them you have to get in early because it's gone in days of release. You can get a tour of the winery, one of the Brothers will show you around. Make no bones about it, it's alcoholic wine alright

 

[Shogun]

In college, after a couple bottles, I was convinced that Manischewitz meant "tastes like shit" in hebrew.

 

[Ravi]

On the wine. A couple of hours north of me there's a winery that makes sacramental wine as well as the usual wine, it's been run by the Jesuits since the middle of the 19th Century. The sacramental wine is used all over Australia and some is exported for use in the church. The regular wine is absolutely top class and if you want a bottle of port from them you have to get in early because it's gone in days of release. You can get a tour of the winery, one of the Brothers will show you around. Make no bones about it, it's alcoholic wine alright

iirc, the Brothers make excellent beer as well. Funny they are celibate but not teetotalers.

 

[jillian]

i have no idea their slant, do you dispute their findings, if so why? there were actually quite a few google links that supported the theory that the wine was in fact non-alcoholic. i would also make the argument that the wine had no time to ferment, then again, Jesus being God could have instantly made fermented wine, but somehow, i doubt it. do you dispute the fact that "new wine" referred to fresh pressed grapes?

I'd suggest that in looking at any source, you look at their slant... because there aren't any FINDINGS...it's some guy whose interpretation is a particular one. And if his particular church is teetotlers, then it makes sense that *his* jesus wouldn't be making wine.

Personally, I think the concept of it being grape juice is silly given the culture at the time... the jewish culture... was wine drinking. And frankly, I'd have to know what the words were from the original because there are different words in aramaic and hebrew for wine and juice. And, we still call wine "fruit of the vine" when saying blessings in Hebrew. But it's wine, nonetheless.

 

[Diuretic]

iirc, the Brothers make excellent beer as well. Funny they are celibate but not teetotalers.

I didn't know that but I've started remembering about religious orders and booze.

There's heaps of them! I mean even the good Dom

 

[Yurt]

I'd suggest that in looking at any source, you look at their slant... because there aren't any FINDINGS...it's some guy whose interpretation is a particular one. And if his particular church is teetotlers, then it makes sense that *his* jesus wouldn't be making wine.

Personally, I think the concept of it being grape juice is silly given the culture at the time... the jewish culture... was wine drinking. And frankly, I'd have to know what the words were from the original because there are different words in aramaic and hebrew for wine and juice. And, we still call wine "fruit of the vine" when saying blessings in Hebrew. But it's wine, nonetheless.

there were findings. also, i don't presume to know the answer, that is why i phrased it as a question. you weren't there, neither was I, so we cannot know for certain. here is a more objective source...interestingly, while coming to no true conclusion, it does suggest that there was in fact a way to make "non-alcoholic" wine.

John 2:3ff And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine.
This is the one that really gets the pot boiling, since if Jesus produced wine with alcoholic content, this is clear evidence that there is some leeway for consumption of alcohol. Bacchiocchi [Bac.W, 138ff] notes the possibility that oinos refers to unfermented grape juice, but as this is only a possibility, it is not conclusive. One defining argument is that the governor of the feast called the oinos "good wine", and Bacchiocchi's comment that this title was commonly given to wines that had been filtered so as to temper its effects [Bac.W, 129]. The filtering removed much (but apparently not all) of the intoxicating effects, enabling more to be consumed. Bacchiocchi jumps to the conclusion that this equates with total prohibition, but as he does not show that the filtering process removed all alcoholic content, the argument cannot be taken so far, so easily.

Of perhaps more persuasive bearing is the theological argument that the miracle of Cana, representing as it did an divine act of creation, indicates that there was no fermentation, because unfermented wine is "the only wine God produces" in nature. But it is questionable whether the analogy can be pressed so far. The water was originally drawn by men; how does this fit in? Furthermore, to make the point that fermentation is a "process of decay", while scientifically and technically true, does not hold much strength since decay of some kind begins in nature anyway, even if it is not specifically fermentation. I am reminded here of skeptics who say that Jesus could not have been the Passover lamb because he was whipped first and was therefore not without blemish. Typological matching does not require full precision in any scenario.

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowine.html

a good read if you are interested

 

[frazzledgear]

He was a half assed magician, a real messiah would have produced something truly miraculous like Jack Daniels, how can you follow someone who can only produce girly wine?

I have to wonder at this NEED to openly insult Christ by some people here. It is a religious thread and yet look how many truly vicious atheists are populating it. There is a reason they do -and the nature of their comments shows that reason. Your insults don't diminish Christ in the least -they only diminish you. Do you think your hateful comments are somehow worse than what Christ already endured when on this earth? You would have fit right in with those who spat on Him, insulted Him, forced Him to wear a crown of thorns, beaten and crucified Him and placed the sign that He was King of the Jews. Is it those who insulted and tortured Christ who are loved and followed by billions today? They are nobodies history rewarded with total ignominy -as you will be too.

Why not insult Islam and Muhammad I wonder? You never feel this same NEED to go to an Islamic site and insult their religious beliefs, do you? Never insult devout Muslims on an Islamic website and write filth about how their Prophet was a child rapist, murderer and thief, right? Maybe because you know for a fact that no insulted Christian will end up sawing your head off? Or for some other reason? Why not insult Buddha? Just too ignorant about Buddhism to even know where to start? Or for some other reason?

I would ask why you aren't going to the same effort to insult Judaism except I happen to know for a fact that people like you are among the most vicious anti-semitics around so you probably do in other situations anyway. The most vicious anti-semitics I've EVER met were atheists who PRIDED themselves on their anti-semitism. In that regard, American atheists are no different from the European atheists who consider themselves sooo "enlightened". Your misplaced pride for that and your equally obnoxious filth you spew about Christ reveals the nature of your soul. And it is big time ugly.

You ought to be ashamed of such remarks. But that would imply you actually had respect for others - and we know that isn't true. What your hateful spewing really says is that people of religious beliefs, particularly those of Christian and Jewish beliefs - have everything to fear from people like you. We aren't even quite "real" people to you -or you wouldn't go out of your way like this to write such filth.

Your filth can't touch my faith -and sadly, in the end, that filth won't save you. All I feel is pity for how little you sold your soul.

 

[jillian]

Filth? You really need to buy a sense of humor.

 

[Diuretic]

It was fun while it lasted. Give it a rest frazz - go and find a thread where someone accuses Mohammed of being a paedophile, there's plenty of them. This is entirely tame in comparison.

 

[roomy]

I have to wonder at this NEED to openly insult Christ by some people here. It is a religious thread and yet look how many truly vicious atheists are populating it. There is a reason they do -and the nature of their comments shows that reason. Your insults don't diminish Christ in the least -they only diminish you. Do you think your hateful comments are somehow worse than what Christ already endured when on this earth? You would have fit right in with those who spat on Him, insulted Him, forced Him to wear a crown of thorns, beaten and crucified Him and placed the sign that He was King of the Jews. Is it those who insulted and tortured Christ who are loved and followed by billions today? They are nobodies history rewarded with total ignominy -as you will be too.

Why not insult Islam and Muhammad I wonder? You never feel this same NEED to go to an Islamic site and insult their religious beliefs, do you? Never insult devout Muslims on an Islamic website and write filth about how their Prophet was a child rapist, murderer and thief, right? Maybe because you know for a fact that no insulted Christian will end up sawing your head off? Or for some other reason? Why not insult Buddha? Just too ignorant about Buddhism to even know where to start? Or for some other reason?

I would ask why you aren't going to the same effort to insult Judaism except I happen to know for a fact that people like you are among the most vicious anti-semitics around so you probably do in other situations anyway. The most vicious anti-semitics I've EVER met were atheists who PRIDED themselves on their anti-semitism. In that regard, American atheists are no different from the European atheists who consider themselves sooo "enlightened". Your misplaced pride for that and your equally obnoxious filth you spew about Christ reveals the nature of your soul. And it is big time ugly.

You ought to be ashamed of such remarks. But that would imply you actually had respect for others - and we know that isn't true. What your hateful spewing really says is that people of religious beliefs, particularly those of Christian and Jewish beliefs - have everything to fear from people like you. We aren't even quite "real" people to you -or you wouldn't go out of your way like this to write such filth.

Your filth can't touch my faith -and sadly, in the end, that filth won't save you. All I feel is pity for how little you sold your soul.

I accept your pity with open arms, would you now go and pray for me please as you fuck off out of my thread which you have quite blatantly tried to derail? As long as lunatics like you abound one swift prayer to your Lord and master and I am saved, you are bound by your faith to do so, now toddle along Padre.

Fucking zealous idiot.

 

[Ravi]

Fraz's faith seems pretty damn shakey to me...what a meltdown over a little humor.

 

[roomy]

Notes on Jesus and Alcohol
Did Jesus drink alcohol? Yes of course he did. Many people wish to reshape Jesus into God as they wish him to be but we must accept what the Bible tells us. Jesus drank Oxos on the cross. Oxos is often translated as vinegar. Oxos could also be translated as cheap wine or sour wine but even if it is vinegar it still contains alcohol. Since Jesus drank alcohol then the question is , how much?

In John 2:1 - 10 Jesus creates wine in his first miracle. The "governor of the feast" uses the phrase "when men have well drunk" KJV or as the new International Version translates it, "guests have had too much to drink."NIV. For people to have become inebriated on the first batch of wine we know that the wine that Jesus replaced contained alcohol. Nowhere does it say the wine he created from water was alcohol free.

In Luke 7:34 we are told that the Pharisees called Jesus a winebibber. From the Greek word Oinopotes, a winebibber is a wine drinking alcoholic. By the context it is obvious that the comment is an exaggeration but it is not apparently a falsehood especially when taken with the fact that Jesus consumed alcohol on the cross.

 

[Yurt]

roomy;684144]Notes on Jesus and Alcohol
Did Jesus drink alcohol? Yes of course he did.

roomy, i know you think you were there with Him, but you were not and neither was I.... btw, would love to buy a plane ticket to over the pond and drink guinness beer with you.... (smiley's suck here, so will not give one)

Many people wish to reshape Jesus into God as they wish him to be but we must accept what the Bible tells us. Jesus drank Oxos on the cross. Oxos is often translated as vinegar. Oxos could also be translated as cheap wine or sour wine but even if it is vinegar it still contains alcohol. Since Jesus drank alcohol then the question is , how much?

you do realize that you are reshaping Him as you wish Him to be and asking us to accept what you tell us. Oxos (i don't care to call my greek/hebrew theo friends and ask them to fill in here, though maybe i should) is a word that as you said is not definitive....words mean different things in different eras. regardless, when he was on the cross, he avoided the stronger drug.

In John 2:1 - 10 Jesus creates wine in his first miracle. The "governor of the feast" uses the phrase "when men have well drunk" KJV or as the new International Version translates it, "guests have had too much to drink."NIV. For people to have become inebriated on the first batch of wine we know that the wine that Jesus replaced contained alcohol. Nowhere does it say the wine he created from water was alcohol free.

.......and no where does it say the wine had alcohol.

In Luke 7:34 we are told that the Pharisees called Jesus a winebibber. From the Greek word Oinopotes, a winebibber is a wine drinking alcoholic. By the context it is obvious that the comment is an exaggeration but it is not apparently a falsehood especially when taken with the fact that Jesus consumed alcohol on the cross.

this is where i most strongly agree with you....for the point that Jesus drank alcohol, not that the wedding was served "magic" booze.

so how are those pubs across the pond muddy one?