I would never put you on my ignore list…I come to these places to talk with anyone and everyone…I feel we should always be able to express our thoughts without that kind of stuff going on. I might be an SDA, but i was born into a Catholic family and yet grew up thinking we evolved from Apes. Im about as confused in heritage as they come i think.
1 Like
now here is a question i can answer without throwing stones at people…um, actually come to think of it…maybe that will still happen anyway.
So heres the deal from an SDA perspective on Jesus turning water into wine:
Seventh Day Adventists, at least in my upbringing in the church from about the age of 11, believe that the wine Jesus made from water in John chapter 2, was not alcoholic.
I cannot say that there is irrefutable proof of this, however, if we go back to the writings of Solomon in the book of proverbs we find:
19 Listen, my son, and be wise,
and guide your heart on the right course.
20 Do not join those who drink too much wine
or gorge themselves on meat.
21 For the drunkard and the glutton will come to poverty,
and drowsiness will clothe them in rags.
and this
29 Who has woe? Who has sorrow?
Who has contentions? Who has complaints?
Who has needless wounds? Who has bloodshot eyes?
30 Those who linger over wine,
who go to taste mixed drinks.
31 Do not gaze at wine while it is red,
when it sparkles in the cup
and goes down smoothly.
32 In the end it bites like a snake
and stings like a viper.
33 Your eyes will see strange things,
and your mind will utter perversities.
34 You will be like one sleeping on the high seas
or lying on the top of a mast:
35 “They struck me, but I feel no pain!
They beat me, but I did not know it!
When can I wake up
to search for another drink?”
Generally we just feel that a God who inspires king Solomon to write such things is hardly being any kind of role model by then turning around and having his own Son create alcoholic wine that dulls the senses and blocks the whisperings of the Holy Spirit and our reasoning ability is immediately affected even with just a small amount. I do not buy into the argument “oh but just a little doesnt do anything”…well i could say the same about having other gods, stealing, coveting, or taking Gods name in vain…one could explain away many sins in a similar manner using the same processes.
Now i know that a notable rebuttal to the SDA view would be the question “what about medical drugs?”…that is a different argument that I think most Adventists say is not really the same. My lifes experience tells me people dont generally drink alcohol for some kind of self prescribed medicinal value and that the effects of using it to escape things in life in a manner such as this actually has a tendency to make it far worse rather than better.
I guess to tie this in with the context of this topic, SDA’s would also tend to link fermentation with sin and the fall of man. I have not yet studied or researched how this view can reconcile with the biocycle that exists in nature or indeed if there would have been the need for rotting of vegetation etc prior to the fall of man. What we do know from the narrative in Genesis, for those who take the reading literally, is that after the fall, weeds and tares would grow and that man would tend to the crops he grew by the sweat of his brow. My thoughts are that statement in Genesis after the fall probably supports the view that prior to sin this cycle was not necessary in the way we see it today (leaves and flowers didnt die and fall off plants). Having said that, honestly, who really knows…its a question we can ask God when we get to heaven.
Hi Adam
Here is a quote from Pastor Bill Klein
“The word for wine always indicates the fruit from the vine. But the custom in those days because of the bad water is to drink wine that has been diluted with water sometimes it’s as much is as nine parts water one part wine just to bring down the alcohol level. Their alcohol level in their drinks was much lower than ours. It is not the same as our wine today. So people say, why did Jesus create wine so that people could get drunk? Well it doesn’t say that He did. But they did say it was the best wine that they had, proof of the miracle.”
I thought this was a pretty good article on being sober-minded and vigilant.
I see I’m on it.
1 Like
Diluted wine is still alcoholic. Fermentation was how the ancients preserved grape juice. There was no refrigeration or sterile bottling available back then. In one parable, Jesus talked about how new wine would burst an old wine skin. Why? Fermentation making alcohol. At Pentecost, the disciples were mocked and accused of being full of new wine. Moderate drinking is not the same thing as getting drunk. Otherwise, moderate eating would be no better than gluttony.
So, it’s fine if your religion forbids alcohol. Not drinking can also be a personal decision; alcoholics should not drink at all. But you shouldn’t try to make Scripture fit your religion’s rules.
2 Likes
Got any documentation that they diluted the wine that much? It sounds disgusting. It certainly wouldn’t impress the guests at the wedding at Cana in Galilee! Nobody is asking why Jesus created wine so people could get drunk. If you don’t want to drink, then don’t do it.
1 Like
Interesting topic to me, as I grew up in a Baptist era that had essentially the same answers about wine, but has gradually moved away from complete prohibition but still against excess. Even the children’s stories had Jesus turning water into a “super fancy party drink.” (Which is ridiculous, as what child would not grow up wanting some of that stuff!)
Now, it seems that the desire to be true to the scripture has prevailed over being true to the doctrine that was historically held, which I think is healthy, although many in my church are still strict prohibitionists, though based on ethical concerns rather than biblical. The majority however, are not. Ironically, when a kid, those strict prohibitionists would gather outside smoking after church, and now I suspect smoking is looked down on worse than drinking. Interesting cultural shift.
2 Likes
1 Timothy 5:23
23 Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for your stomach’s sake and your often infirmities. The water in those days were polluted. They were diseased. And people in those days took a small amount of wine mixed it with water. In one of our Greek classes we studied how that it in those days it was nine parts water one part wine. It did not have the alcohol content, the fermentation as our alcoholic beverages do today. It took quite a while for you to drink and that’s why the wedding feast lasted an entire week. It took a long while to get drunk on some like this. But they took a little wine for their stomach’s sake. It was medicinal purposes because of how bad the water is. And it is kind of interesting that if you notice how it’s worded, it’s a command, because Timothy doesn’t want to go near this stuff. In fact back in chapter 3 verse 3, one of the characteristics of the overseer is that they are not given to wine. So he is saying, I’m staying clear that stuff and so Paul has to command him, take a little wine for your stomach sake and for your often infirmities. Obviously Timothy was a sick person, not in good health and he was told to take a little wine for his stomach sake. He just got through mentioning keep yourself pure so he has to mention this to him because Timothy is wrestling with this issue about keeping himself pure. And so he take a little wine for your stomach’s sake.
Pastor Bill Klein
1 Like
Do you have any proof of this level of dilution? Why is this part of a Greek class?
Are you being serious? The wedding lasted a week just so they could finish up the diluted wine and maybe get drunk?
Nowhere is it implied that Timothy doesn’t want to go near the stuff. You are seeing things that aren’t there.
Fun fact: The Romans used to add lead to wine to sweeten it.
1 Like
I will let you do your own research on it. As it gets to be an endless argumentative question and answer session with more of the same.
Please do your own research.
1 Like
Not exactly: they used lead containers to store the wine, which produces lead acetate, a sweet-tasting compound known as sugar of lead. However, the PbCOOH wouldn’t have contributed a large proportion of the sweet taste, compared to the sugar present. The main advantage of lead is that it doesn’t produce extremely bitter acetates, the way most other available metals did.
1 Like
In reading a bit, they usually used honey to sweeten, and the while at times they diluted up to 9:1, it was usual to dilute around 4:1 with water. The wine then was evidently also very strong, with fermentation taken to the point of the death of the yeast, so often was 13-14%, with modern wines being 11-12% commonly, and the typical wine cooler being 4-7%, so a wine cooler may be about equal to what they commonly drank.
Alcohol is actually produced in our guts at times by yeasts and bacteria breaking down carbohydrates, and may be related to nonalcoholic fatty liver in some as well as even be bad enough to cause intoxication in rare cases.
3 Likes
I just think that if you want to preach the Bible to us you should at least know acknowledge what the Bible actually says and not read your own doctrines into it. Do you agree?
2 Likes
Think it important to note the event is historical as a display of God’s Glory as a sign to prove the Deity of Jesus Christ
Yes, and it shows how Mary encouraged her son to begin His public ministry.
1 Like
I don’t think you can convince me that it’s talking about grape juice.
Nor here:
…or here:
I think you are teaching false doctrine.
2 Likes
Richard Dawkins may describe it as the evolution of a meme.
Excellent! And only folks who took a Nazarite vow had to abstain from booze.
1 Like
That describes my thoughts on the topic as well.
Lemaitre and the Big Bang theory might offer an interesting parallel (I think someone mentioned it earlier). I wouldn’t be surprised if Lemaitre’s beliefs as a Jesuit priest influenced his interest in the idea of the Universe having a beginning. In fact, many scientists were skeptical of the Big Bang theory because of the religious implications people were tying to it and its vocal support by a Jesuit priest. Would it be accurate to say that a Christian religious belief in a beginning for the Universe influenced the Big Bang theory? I would say yes. Was that the only inspiration for the theory? Absolutely not.
5 Likes