KunleOshob:

In th elight of the above it is better it is preached that christians are encouraged to abstain from the consumption, it should not be presented as a biblical sin as those doing so are twisting the word of God to butress their point and commiting an even greater sin. In our mis-placed zealousness we should not be guilty of adding to or subtracting from the word of God.

Sometimes, the way you think and comment makes me wanna take a deep breathe.

This is the way it should be taught jare, encourage abstinence from consumption and don't "demonise" wine/alcohol; many of us have seen what excess of it does, and indeed, it's nothing good to write home about; most times anyways.

Allta:

Sometimes, the way you think and comment makes me wanna take a deep breathe.

This is the way it should be taught jare, encourage abstinence from consumption and don't "demonise" wine/alcohol; many of us have seen what excess of it does, and indeed, it's nothing good to write home about; most times anyways.

Thanx my brother!!

@kunleOshob and Allta
Good to see that we're moving together. But you need to do your beer and wine researches well again o. Nobody can put 90% alcohol in any drink. Then beer is usually of higher alcoholic content than wine.
Also, please note that what is generally known as wine today is FERMENTED, not naturally but induced. It quite different from fresh palmwine which over time will ferment. It's different from grape juice which over time will ferment. Now yayin or bayin, I'm not a fan of 'greek words'. But it is general knowledge that Jesus turned water into 'new' wine. I think that is instructive. Do you doubt that Jesus had the power to turn the water into old wine which the people were expecting?

Image123:

@kunleOshob and Allta
   Good to see that we're moving together. But you need to do your beer and wine researches well again o. Nobody can put 90% alcohol in any drink. Then beer is usually of higher alcoholic content than wine.
Also, please note that what is generally known as wine today is FERMENTED, not naturally but induced. It quite different from fresh palmwine which over time will ferment. It's different from grape juice which over time will ferment. Now yayin or bayin, I'm not a fan of 'greek words'. But it is general knowledge that Jesus turned water into 'new' wine. I think that is instructive. Do you doubt that Jesus had the power to turn the water into old wine which the people were expecting?

You're right image123, I wasn't sure about beer, that's why I used the word maybe

Allta:

So now we're saying alcohol get category, it's ok to drink wine (a type of alcoholic drink with 14% alcohol) in moderation but not beer (another type of alcohol maybe 90% alcohol) in moderation.

But I can confirm beer usually contains between 4 to 8% ethyl alcohol by volume. For reference, see http://www.realbeer.com/edu/health/calories.php Kunle mentioned something close as well. One thing for sure, beer is usually less as strong as wine in alcohol percentage terms.

So, I will edit/change that part of my post now. Thanks

Image123:

@kunleOshob and Allta
Good to see that we're moving together. But you need to do your beer and wine researches well again o. Nobody can put 90% alcohol in any drink. [b]Then beer is usually of higher alcoholic content than wine.[/b]Also, please note that what is generally known as wine today is FERMENTED, not naturally but induced. It quite different from fresh palmwine which over time will ferment. It's different from grape juice which over time will ferment. Now yayin or bayin, I'm not a fan of 'greek words'. But it is general knowledge that Jesus turned water into 'new' wine. I think that is instructive. Do you doubt that Jesus had the power to turn the water into old wine which the people were expecting?

@Image123
As usual you are wrong beer contains much less alcohol than wine, i am glad Alta as already corrected you and supplied you with a link to verify. But then again what is all this argument about now where is it recorded in the bible that alcohol consumption is a sin and we have already established that Jesus used to consume alcoholic wine. Why are you trying to force what is not in the bible into it?

Image123:

Now yayin or bayin, I'm not a fan of 'greek words'. But it is general knowledge that Jesus turned water into 'new' wine. I think that is instructive. Do you doubt that Jesus had the power to turn the water into old wine which the people were expecting?

Thanks image123, but let me say how I understand that bit of John 2.

Jesus turned water into wine and asked the servants to take it to the master. At this point, the Bible didn't mention whether the wine was "new" or "old".
The servants knew where the wine came from but the master of ceremony didn't. So, he thought the bridegroom kept it for the latter as in until now.
The master tasted the wine, obviously loved it and believed it's much better than some other wine that has been served. Then he said, this "new" wine has been kept until now, but should have been served first.

This got me curious, what differentiates the "new" wine from the "old" wine, is it the degree of fermentation or how long it's fermented for? Actually, I wasn't so sure. I would think it's more in the quality which translates to cost. Generally, the better the quality of a thing, the more expensive it is. I can see you giving me that face, so let me show some other bible translation for verse 10.

John 2:10
NKJV
"And he said to him, "Every man at the beginning sets out the good wine, and when the guests have well drunk, then the inferior. You have kept the good wine until now!"

ASV
"and saith unto him, Every man setteth on first the good wine; and when [men] have drunk freely, [then] that which is worse: thou hast kept the good wine until now."

NASV
"and said to him, "Every man serves the good wine first, and when the people have drunk freely, then he serves the poorer wine; but you have kept the good wine until now.""

Amplified
"And said to him, Everyone else serves his best wine first, and when people have drunk freely, then he serves that which is not so good; but you have kept back the good wine until now!"

NIV
"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."

As for me, my best translation for this verse is in NLT
NLT
"Usually a host serves the best wine first," he said. "Then, when everyone is full and doesn't care, he brings out the less expensive wines. But you have kept the best until now!"

The word of particular interest to me in this verse is inferior/worse/poorer/cheaper/less expensive; From the KJV Strongs, the original greek word is "Elasson" a verb - action word which means less in age, rank, excellence. Strongs also compares this word with "Elachistos" meaning smallest in size, amount, importance.

So to me, the "new" wine is more expensive and of better quality than the "old" wine. And people will always prefer to drink and expect to drink the "new" wine first. Like the master of the ceremony said: Everyone serves the best/new/good/more expensive wine first and then when people get too drunk and don't care anymore, you then serve the inferior/cheaper/poorer wine.

Trust me, I've been trying to connect FERMENTATION with how expensive or better a wine can be maybe the more Fermented it is, the more expensive or better it is, or could this be the other way round? Maybe the less Fermented it is the better the quality? And I personally wouldn't have expected Christ to turn water into inferior/worse/poorer/ wine. So, just to reiterate, what makes the wine in John 2 better is in it's quality, and people don't get drunk with fruit wine! The MC clearly states that the type of wine he tasted (which Christ turned water into) was of the type that gets people drunk. isn't it?

When the MC used the word drunk, the greek word he used is Methuo(meaning to be drunken), a verb which is coined from Methe - a noun which means intoxication/drunkeness. Tell me, can fruit wine intoxicate people at a party? So if Christ turned water into a wine that can intoxicate, I really don't know why the degree of fermentation is much of an issue here. Except ofcourse, if the wine fermented at the speed of light while the servants were taking in to the MC.

Heya my bad, see Kunle waiting to pounce. Sorry for the mix up. I've read it and acknowledged it earlier that beer usually had lower alcoholic content than 'wine'. What I didn't bring out clearly is that the alcoholic intake by many through beer is far ahead of their intake of 'wine'. i.e a bottle of the same size of beer may contain less alcohol than the same size of 'wine', but hardly will people drink a whole bottle of 'wine'. They'll usually serve the wine in small quantity compared to beer which many take bottles and cartons. At the end, the alcoholic intake is higher. I'm really sorry about the mistake. It wasn't intentional.
Allta, you don't need to think to far. The fresh grape juice was the new or good wine, while the fermented one was as the name suggests,the old wine or worse wine. You can do your 'jewish' research sha

Image123:

Allta, you don't need to think to far. The fresh grape juice was the new or good wine, while the fermented one was as the name suggests,the old wine or worse wine. You can do your 'jewish' research sha

I'm itching and inclined to comment, should I? hmmm, hmmm, Image123, you go buy me TFC o!

ok, let's go to Matt9:17 where Christ mentioned new wine and old wine ,

ASV
"Neither do [men] put new wine into old wine-skins: else the skins burst, and the wine is spilled, and the skins perish: but they put new wine into fresh wine-skins, and both are preserved."

Amplified
"Neither is new wine put in old wineskins; for if it is, the skins burst and are torn in pieces, and the wine is spilled and the skins are ruined. But new wine is put into fresh wineskins, and so both are preserved."

NCV
"Also, people never pour new wine into old leather bags. Otherwise, the bags will break, the wine will spill, and the wine bags will be ruined. But people always pour new wine into new wine bags. Then both will continue to be good."

NLT
"And no one puts new wine into old wineskins. The old skins would burst from the pressure, spilling the wine and ruining the skins. New wine must be stored in new wineskins. That way both the wine and the wineskins are preserved."

So, we can see that "new wine" here can actually add so much pressure to the leather skin wine bag to burst or spoil it, abi?

Check out what Adam's Clarke Commentary says:

Verse 17. New wine into old bottles
It is still the custom, in the eastern countries, to make their bottles of goat skins: if these happened to be old, and new wine were put into them, the violence of the fermentation must necessarily burst them; and therefore newly made bottles were employed for the purpose of putting that wine in which had not yet gone through its state of fermentation.

From here, I can see that you're right, ie. fresh grape juice/sugar has to go through fermentation to become alcohol. But really, Fermentation is not the pivot point as there wasn't a mention of "new" wine in John 2:10; rather it's saying good/best/choice, and what Christ turned water into is definitely intoxicating. I would say, it's within or past the stage of fermentation.

But sha, I'm inclined to accept that the wine Christ turned water into (John 2:10) was enough to get people drunk/intoxicated. Having said that, I believe Christians should be encouraged to abstain from Alcohol (which isn't sin) because too much of it can cause wahala, but what about in moderation? well, certainly not a sin. Eg. I can't call someone a sinner for drinking red wine on their flight in moderation, or someone drinking Gulder at a party in moderation, or even Star at home for dinner in moderation etc.

@Image123
I won't pounce on you as long as you stick to the biblical truth on the subject.

Hi, it has been a good day. Thanks for the new wine confirmation. I for buy you mama put but nairaland no gree pass 200kb attachment.
Now John2v10 says 'when men have well drunk'. My english teacher tell me that is different from 'when men are drunk'. Drunk in that sentence is not the adjective, well is. Drunk is a past participle verb meaning satisfied. Check it up. Goodnight

Image123:

Hi, it has been a good day. Thanks for the new wine confirmation. I for buy you mama put but nairaland no gree pass 200kb attachment.
Now John2v10 says 'when men have well drunk'. My english teacher tell me that is different from 'when men are drunk'. Drunk in that sentence is not the adjective, well is. Drunk is a past participle verb meaning satisfied. Check it up. Goodnight

hahahahahaha  I'm speechless, you make me feel like one English Student and you the English Teacher.

Check out other Bible versions:

NASV "when the people have drunk freely"
NIV "after the guests have had too much to drink"
NLT "when everyone is full and doesn't care"

I will go into the English analysis tomorrow. I just came back from Church now, so I better hit the bed before my eyes pop out.

Gudnight Bro!

At the end of the day,

Whether its sinful or not,
Too much Alcohol will kill you or contribute to your premature death
if you dont die in a crash, you are not assassinated or omoroguned to death.

So, its really better to abstain, if you cant hold it like i do,
i drink wine like water but i only buy once in 3 months.

Image123:

Now John2v10 says 'when men have well drunk'. My english teacher tell me that is different from 'when men are drunk'. Drunk in that sentence is not the adjective, well is. Drunk is a past participle verb meaning satisfied. Check it up. Goodnight

Sorry, just got the chance to chip in my reply.

If "well" is the adjective, then which noun is it describing? "men"? as in the "men" are well? as in ok/alright health wise? Common, or are you teasing me or what?

In "when men have well drunk", well is definitely describing "drunk"; as in how drunk they were, not lightly drunk, not fully drunk, but well drunk! as in a state of drunkenness which is enough. We can easily take out "well" the descriptor and the sentence will still make sense. Take out the "drunk" and see whether it will make sense? You dig?

"Drunk" in this statement is not the noun, it's actually a past participle verb like you mentioned, however it's got nothing to do with satisfaction, "well" does. Drunk is the past participle verb of Drink (a normal verb). Drank is the past tense of Drink. To Drink is to put something usually a liquid into your mouth and swallow it. if this was completed in past, then Drank is used. It doesn't matter whether you are satisfied or not, When You're Drunk, You're Drunk!!

Can you please make reference to a Dictionary that gives "satisfaction" as one of the meanings to "drunk/drink"? I bet you can't

But check out this reference:
Drunk occurs after a linking verb: He was not drunk, just jovial. The actor was drunk with success. The modifier drunk in legal language describes a person whose blood contains more than the legally allowed percentage of alcohol: Drunk drivers go to jail.

The standard and most frequent form of the past participle of drink in both speech and writing is drunk: Who has drunk all the milk? However, perhaps because of the association of drunk with intoxication, drank is widely used as a past participle in speech by educated persons and must be considered an alternate standard form: The tourists had drank their fill of the scenery.

****phew**** now I feel like one secondary school kid, hope I've impressed my English teacher(image123 ie.) to give me a pass mark.

Allta, thanks for the english lessons. Truly I'm impressed. it's a past participle verb 'drunk' not an adjective 'drunk'. It's not rational to bring in 'wine' of any form when men are already intoxicated.

Hi Everyone,

This has been a very interesting topic and the willingness of you guyz going thru great lenghts to do researches and contribute meaningfully is well appreciated. If all christians could just do this, we would most likely have weeded out some of the untruths being bandied around in religious circles.

@image123

In matthew 35:18,19 Jesus was showcasing how hard it takes to please the people of his generation by comparing himself and John. He said 'John came neither eating nor drinking'. John of course eats and drinks, but the bible says he eats Locusts and Honey, that must mean he eats just that or that he rarely eats other food, if he does eat other food occasionally, then Jesus must have been emphasizing his point by using a hyperbole.

He then said 'the son of man came eating and drinking, but you said a man gluttonous and given to drinking wine'. This means Jesus eats and drinks like every typical God fearing Jew especially on social occasions, but the pharisees exxagerated the whole issue.

'They said he was a friend of tax collectors', most tax collectors were mean and loan sharks and they work for the Roman slavers so they were greatly scorned in israel, these people were not in Jesus circle of friends nor close associates, but just on a few occasions when he searched out tax collectors that were willing to turn around and change (zacchaeus and matthew), they branded him as someone who is a cohort, just to castigate him.

Then they said he was a 'wine bibber/given to drinking wine/drunkard', definitely this implies that Jesus takes alcoholic drink or wine, but as its typical of the first accusation, they greatly exagerated this action in order to castigate him in the eyes of the people. The accusation would not have been considered at all if Jesus has never been observed taken wine especially in public where people can him. We should remember that these pharisees were the most intelligent and highly educated men in Israel, they were the elites and they were older men with wealth of experience and the Bible often say they would meet together and plan on how to trap Jesus. So they dont just throw accusations around, they use the ones that would almost stick, and that is why eventually when they arrested Jesus, despite all his verifiable miracles the whole crowd wanted him killed not just the pharisees.

The strategy of the pharisees has always been to look for something minute and use it against Jesus e.g the issue of his disciples not washing hands, not observing the sabbath because they harvested a handful of grains, the issue of tax, subverting the nation against Rome that he is a King (treason) e.t.c.
All am saying again is Jesus took wine, because it is socially acceptable and not condenm by the scriptures, in fact it was an integral part of their daily life and worship (check my earlier posts.)

Take care guyz

Allta, are you there? I said it's a past participle verb drunk that was used, not an adjective 'drunk'. The importance of that is the 'drunk' in John 2 is not refering to intoxication. It is an adjective 'drunk' that refers to intoxication. Like you pointed out, 'well' is an adverb describing drunk. Thank you.
Razby, my point all along has been that the wine taken by Jesus is not what people are clamouring for today. I've not stated that Jesus did not take wine. My debate is what kind, is it paraga, stout or fresh grape juice

Image123:

Allta, are you there? I said it's a past participle verb drunk that was used, not an adjective 'drunk'. The importance of that is the 'drunk' in John 2 is not refering to intoxication. It is an adjective 'drunk' that refers to intoxication. Like you pointed out, 'well' is an adverb describing drunk. Thank you.
Razby, my point all along has been that the wine taken by Jesus is not what people are clamouring for today. I've not stated that Jesus did not take wine. My debate is what kind, is it paraga, stout or[b] fresh grape juice[/b]

Why do you keep trying to force what is not in the bible into it Do people get drunk on fresh grape juice were is it in the bible that remotely even suggests that what Jesus took is fresh grape juice?

@ Image123

I'm glad we're both singing from the same Hymn book as per "drunk" being past participle verb. For a second, let me agree with you that adjective "drunk" only refers to intoxication.

drunk is the pp of verb "drink", right? so you agree that "drunk" will mean the same thing as "drink", but the only thing difference is whether it was done in the past or present, right?

"Drink", when used as a verb, can either have an object or not.

"Drink" used with object: eg. I asked him to drink the liquid or He has drunk the liquid
- to take (a liquid) into the mouth and swallow.
- to take in (a liquid) in any manner; absorb.

Also "Drink" can be used without an object: eg. He never drinks or They never drink or They won't find jobs until they stop drinking.
- to take water or other liquid into the mouth and swallow it; imbibe.
- to imbibe alcoholic drinks, esp. habitually or to excess; tipple.

The kind of Drink used in John 2 is clearly without an object. So it refers to imbibing alcoholic drinks, surely?
If I go to a party with a friend who doesn't take alcohol. If I get to the bar and barman offers to sell 2 bottles of Gulder, I will say "My friend doesn't drink, I will buy only 1 bottle please".
Some people don't drink orange/grape juice. If such arrive at the bar, can I say something like "He doesn't drink, I will buy only 1 bottle please"? Surely this will get the barman confused.

OK, let's look at another Bible Translation: THE MESSAGE:

"Everybody I know begins with their finest wines and after the guests have had their fill brings in the cheap stuff. But you've saved the best till now!"

Easy-to-Read Bible Version:

He said to the bridegroom, "People always serve the best wine first. Later, after the guests have become drunk, people serve the cheaper wine. But you have saved the best wine until now."

New Revised Standard:

and said to him, "Everyone serves the good wine first, and then the inferior wine after the guests have become drunk. But you have kept the good wine until now."

Amplified:

And said to him, Everyone else serves his best wine first, and when people have drunk freely, then he serves that which is not so good; but you have kept back the good wine until now!

Clearly drunk/drink here doesn't have an object.

Having said that, Christ drinks wine, a type in which if one consumes too much, can make people call you a drunkard/winebibber.

Think about it, if that wine can't intoxicate, as in if it's fresh grape juice, can drinking too much of it make people call you a drunkard or a drunk?

rabzy:

He said 'John came neither eating nor drinking'. John of course eats and drinks, but the bible says he eats Locusts and Honey, that must mean he eats just that or that he rarely eats other food, if he does eat other food occasionally, then Jesus must have been emphasizing his point by using a hyperbole.

@rabzy, here Jesus meant "Fasting" - periods where people neither eat or drink.

THE MESSAGE Bible Version:

John the Baptizer came fasting and you called him crazy.

NEW LIVING TRANSLATION:

For John the Baptist didn't drink wine and he often fasted, and you say, 'He's demon possessed.'

IMO, they think John is possessed with a demon as in crazy, because he often fasts, this is because, as I believe his style/mode of fasting is something they are not used to. So it sounds and looks crazy to them. For example, if someone came to you and said, I just finished my 200days(although this is not same as John's case o) of fasting without anything entering my mouth, you would think such a person isn't normal right?

Kunle, did Jesus get drunk on the wine he took? Or what are you suggesting by your question that 'do people get drunk on fresh grape juice'.
Where it is in the Bible that Jesus took something fresh is where he turned water to good wine, not the worse one that the people usually brought in when guests had been filled. You seem to neglect that Jews were not friends of strong drink and its like, you guys are painting a wrong picture of the Jewish feasts.

Allta, i didn't say adjective 'drunk' ONLY refers to intoxication. I said a verb 'drunk' in John 2 is not and does not refer to intoxication. It refers to an action of drinking(intake of liquid), a past participle.
'They HAVE well drunk' is different from 'They ARE well drunk.' this is normal simple english, there's no need for us to read our biases into this.
And mind you, the people of Jesus' don't know stuff about %alcoholic content. What they know is new and old, good and worse. It is common knowledge that grape juice ferments if unattended to, so what is termed as new wine may as well have alcoholic content, too much of which can lead to intoxication. As I've consistently maintained, it is the low alcoholic content that we should consider, not just that Jesus took wine,Jesus took wine. What type? Is it vodka,satzenbrau or kaikai

Image123:

Allta, i didn't say adjective 'drunk' ONLY refers to intoxication. I said a verb 'drunk' in John 2 is not and does not refer to intoxication. It refers to an action of drinking(intake of liquid), a past participle.
'They HAVE well drunk' is different from 'They ARE well drunk.' this is normal simple english, there's no need for us to read our biases into this.

C'mon man, 'They HAVE well drunk' is different from 'They ARE well drunk.' In the former, HAVE is not a main verb, it's auxiliary - because it doesn't connote possession, as in "I HAVE 10 goats" - then HAVE is a main verb here, not auxiliary.
For you to make a perfect simple tense with any auxiliary verb, you need a past participle form of verb, eg. EATEN, DRUNK etc. "I HAVE eaten plenty rice today"; "I HAVE drunk many bottles today" - this last drunk I used, is a form without intoxication because it's got an Object. Please refer to my previous post! But when you use drunk without an Object then you refer to "intoxication"!

"They ARE well drunk" -  THEY - Subject; ARE - Verb which is the plural form of is; well - only describes the pp-verb DRUNK. "TUNJI is DRUNK". This is obviously a present simple tense. So "They ARE well drunk" demonstrates the present state of THEY, which is DRUNK, well DRUNK!

What gives "Drunk" the meaning of intoxication is the absence of an Object - please refer to your dictionary. The difference between HAVE and ARE as you've used is while the former is used in a perfect simple tense, the latter is used in a present simple tense.

Image123:

And mind you, the people of Jesus' don't know stuff about %alcoholic content. What they know is new and old, good and worse. It is common knowledge that grape juice ferments if unattended to, so what is termed as new wine may as well have alcoholic content, too much of which can lead to intoxication.

You're spot on here, 100%. However, the people of Jesus' prefer old wine to new wine, good than worse. John 2:10 and Luke 5:39

No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better.

Image123:

As I've consistently maintained, it is the low alcoholic content that we should consider, not just that Jesus took wine,Jesus took wine. What type? Is it vodka,satzenbrau or kaikai

A type, which if too much is taken can lead to intoxication. Ok, if I jam you for a party now, see you taking 50 bottles of orange juice while others around you are taking kaikai, can I call you a drunkard afterwards? Can I say: "This man is Drunk"? or "Those guys ARE drunk"? NO, because 100bottles of orange juice can not intoxicate you or make you a drunkard, even though people around you are. But I can say: "This man has well drank/drunk orange juice"; or "Those guys have well drank/drunk orange juice!" This is because I've specified the Object - orange juice, and I did this, to emphasise exclusively that they aren't drunk of an intoxicant.

If I see you at a party consuming 50 bottles of alcohol(whatever percentage); even if others are drinking orange juice, can I call you a drunkard afterwards? YES. For me to exaggerate, you need to consume alcohol, if it were orange juice, then that means I've lied by calling you a drunkard. Ofcourse Christ was never a drunkard because his drinking never affected his physical or mental faculties as far as the Bible is concerned. This is a very good example of moderate consumption of intoxicated drink to me. Some people can get drunk with 5 bottles of white wine, some only need 2 glasses.

Btw, Christ never strictly lived his life to please the Jews, in fact they kept rumbling and mumbling.

Check out Mathew Henry's Commentary on Luke 7:34

They still found something or other to carp at.
John Baptist was a reserved austere man, lived much in solitude, and ought to have been admired for being such a humble, sober, self-denying man, and hearkened to as a man of thought and contemplation; but this, which was his praise, was turned to his reproach. Because he came neither eating nor drinking, so freely, plentifully, and cheerfully, as others did, you say, "He has a devil; he is a melancholy man, he is possessed, as the demoniac whose dwelling was among the tombs, though he be not quite so wild."
Our Lord Jesus was of a more free and open conversation; he came eating and drinking, Luke 7:34. He would go and dine with Pharisees, though he knew they did not care for him; and with publicans, though he knew they were no credit to him; yet, in hopes of doing good both to the one and the other, he conversed familiarly with them. By this it appears that the ministers of Christ may be of very different tempers and dispositions, very different ways of preaching and living, and yet all good and useful; diversity of gifts, but each given to profit withal. Therefore none must make themselves a standard to all others, nor judge hardly of those that do not do just as they do. John Baptist bore witness to Christ, and Christ applauded John Baptist, though they were the reverse of each other in their way of living. But the common enemies of them both reproached them both. The very same men that had represented John as crazed in his intellects, because he came neither eating nor drinking, represented our Lord Jesus as corrupt in his morals, because he came eating and drinking; he is a gluttonous man, and a wine-bibber. Ill-will never speaks well. See the malice of wicked people, and how they put the worst construction upon every thing they meet with in the gospel, and in the preachers and professors of it; and hereby they think to depreciate them, but really destroy themselves.

Clearly Jesus was indulging in a form of drinking and eating which doesn't please the Jews! So, can we now say Jesus drank wine like Jews did? Jesus ate food like Jews did? I'm not saying Jesus didn't drink fresh grape juice, in fact this was used at the last supper as opposed to something intoxicating. I've giving the Greek words for those, please refer to my previous posts. Many Thanks

Allta, hi. I've been busy to reply, sorry.
You're missing my point. If I drink 100 bottles of orange juice, you can't say 'You are drunk.' BUT you can say 'You HAVE drunk'. Because 'drunk' as a past participle does not always refer to intoxication.
Anyway, this link might be of further help. It's good if yourself, KunleOshob considered it in your research. Here it is. http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/books/wine_in_the_bible/2.html
Happy reading

Allta, hi. I've been busy to reply, sorry.
You're missing my point. If I drink 100 bottles of orange juice, you can't say 'You are drunk.' BUT you can say 'You HAVE drunk'. Because 'drunk' as a past participle does not always refer to intoxication.
Anyway, this link might be of further help. It's good if yourself, KunleOshob considered it in your research. Here it is. http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/books/wine_in_the_bible/2.html
Happy reading

Allta, hi. I've been busy to reply, sorry.
You're missing my point. If I drink 100 bottles of orange juice, you can't say 'You are drunk.' BUT you can say 'You HAVE drunk'. Because 'drunk' as a past participle does not always refer to intoxication.
Anyway, this link might be of further help. It's good if yourself, KunleOshob considered it in your research. Here it is. http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/books/wine_in_the_bible/2.html
Happy reading

Image, when you say "They HAVE drunk" you need to add an object to make a perfect simple tense, because you've used an auxiliary verb with a past participle verb. Someone opens the door now, and shouted "They HAVE drunk"; the first question I will ask is what HAVE they drank/drunk? However, someone opens the door now, and shouted "They ARE drunk"; The message is clearly what it is.

let me spell out John 2:10 in American Standard Version Bible:
"and saith unto him, Every man setteth on first the good wine; and when [men] have drunk freely, [then] that which is worse: thou hast kept the good wine until now."

so, say someone opens the door now, and shouted "They HAVE drunk GOOD WINE", let's assume GOOD WINE is fresh grape juice. So what is INFERIOR/LESS-EXPENSIVE/WORSE/CHEAPER/POORER/NOT-SO-GOOD WINE? intoxicable drink? I don't think so. In the context of John 2:10; at least we both agree What they "HAVE DRUNK FREELY" refer to here, is the GOOD/BEST/CHOICE WINE. This is not the same as "NEW" o! New wine is freshly produced juice, Old wine is one which have either been induced by catalytic enzymes to ferment, or just left alone to ferment over a period of time. I would have thought OLD WINES are more EXPENSIVE than NEW WINES. Why? Because it takes something extra to produce OLD WINES.

Even the link you sent me http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/books/wine_in_the_bible/2.html confirms WINE can refer to intoxicating or non-intoxicating drink.  I did mention Yayin, Oinos in my previous posts right? and Dr Samuel focused on these 2 biblical Hebrew and Greek words for wine.

The very first example of the use of yayin in Scripture describes the intoxicating effects of fermented wine: "Noah was the first tiller of the soil. He planted a vineyard; and he drank of the wine [yayin] and became drunk, and lay uncovered in his tent" (Gen 9:20, 21).

The noun yayin is the most frequently used word for wine in the Old Testament, fully 141 times. As already noticed, there is an apparent inconsistency in the use of this word, since sometimes it receives God’s approval and sometimes His disapproval. The reason for this will become apparent by looking at some examples where yayin obviously means fermented, intoxicating wine and at others where it means unfermented grape juice.

About the greek word Oinos, Dr Samuele said

One of the clearest examples of the use of oinos as intoxicating wine, is found in Ephesians 5:18: "And do not get drunk with wine [oinos], for that is debauchery; but be filled with the Spirit."

What is debauchery here: Oinos itself? or getting drunk with Oinos?

That means wine[oinos] can make someone "drunk"! (ofcourse he stated also that wine[oinos] can refer to non-intoxicating wine); but something has to be intoxicating to make someone drunk! - Dr Samuele said there are different kinds of yayin ,  new, old and very old. He didn't differentiate between GOOD/BEST/CHOICE and POORER/WORSE/CHEAPER yayin. Also, why would the people in Luke 7 call christ a drunkard for taking non-intoxicating beverage? It doesn't make any sense! You only call someone (allbeit exaggeration) a drunkard because they've consumed an intoxicating drink!

In a nutshell, Christ drank an intoxicating drink in moderation, let's not beat around the bush no more!

"Let me give you a little inside information about God. God likes to watch. He's a prankster. Think about it. He gives man instincts. He gives you this extraordinary gift, and then what does He do, I swear for His own amusement, his own private, cosmic gag reel, He sets the rules in opposition. It's the goof of all time. Look but don't touch. Touch, but don't taste. Taste, don't swallow. Ahaha. And while you're jumpin' from one foot to the next, what is he doing? He's laughin' His sick, fuckin' ass off! He's a tight-ass! He's a SADIST! He's an absentee landlord!"


alcohol is not good for the body

stede:

alcohol is not good for the body

[b]

STUDIES involving tens of thousands of men and women have strongly suggested that moderate consumption of alcohol can reduce the risk of heart attacks. But how? One mechanism seems to be an alcohol-induced increase in protective high-density-lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, which helps to keep arteries free of fatty deposits.

A new study by researchers at University Hospital in Zurich points to another important mechanism: reducing the growth of arterial muscle cells that would normally occur after eating a high-fat meal. These cells are big factors in the production of atherosclerosis, a narrowing of the passageways through coronary arteries that is the underlying cause of most heart attacks.

The study, directed by Dr. Wilhelm Vetter and published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, demonstrated that consuming the alcohol equivalent of two glasses of wine or three beers along with a high-fat meal containing butter reduced by 20 percent the ability of a person's blood to stimulate growth of arterial muscle cells.

The researchers pointed out that ''considering the amount of time humans spend in the postprandial state during their lifetimes, these findings may be of great importance in the pathogenesis of atherosclerosis.''

They cautioned, however, that their finding should not be taken as an endorsement to control heart disease by consuming alcohol. Instead, they recommended controlling cardiovascular risk factors, which include high blood pressure, elevated blood levels of cholesterol or homocysteine, cigarette smoking, obesity and lack of physical exercise.

By JANE E. BRODY, New York Times
Published: Tuesday, April 7, 1998

[/b]

Image123 wld always twist the bible to suit his convictions, I really wonder what he is trying to say as it is very glaring the wine Jesus took was alcoholic and by implication that means it is NOT sinful to drink alcohol. At least I moderation.

A sad incident <a death> just occurred around my family
linked with alcohol, more of alcohol abuse though.

Even though i maintain its NOT SINFUL,
common sense should be injected in the use of such.
Better to avoid it all together for the sake of everyone

I do not understand why some puritans abhor alcohol, they might as well ban eating meat, eggs (excess will cause high levels of cholesterol in the blood and subsequently heart attack), Sugar as excess will kill you through diabetes, coffee, and intact most foods.

Why single out only alcohol?

Because all those other foods dont make you loose your senses.

Gamine:

Because all those other foods dont make you loose your senses.

yea right, doesn't matter if a man looses his heart or liver, or kidney. Man can even smoke cigarette till death for all we care and destroy his lungs by having cancer, as long as he doesn't loose his senses by taking alcohol, then that's ok, what a load of old toss!