Was There Alcohol in the Wine...

Then it would be old wine, wouldn't it?

 

There are nine different words for wine in the Bible. Each word has a different meaning. gleukos is the same as tiroshe in that they both are non alcoholic. It is a sweet wine.

oinos and yayin are both alike in respect in that they both can be non alcoholic or they both can be alcoholic in content depending on context.

Wine in the Bible is not the same as the wines of today. To argue that it is is contrary to the original language of the Bible.

 

No, it's still new wine at least for months. Old wine is vintage wine that has been allowed to age to maturity.

Look it up for yourself. They put new wine in new wineskins so that it would ferment without breaking the skins. But it was still cheap "new wine" until it was aged enough to be mature and taste better.

For the umpteenth time, that's why the mockers accused the apostles of being drunk on new wine. That's the cheap stuff people drank in order to get drunk. Old wine was expensive, and savored, not something to get drunk on.

 

There is no basis for this statement. We have different words for different wines...merlot...chardonay...ice wine, etc. That does not mean some are alcoholic while some are not. Wine in the Bible is the same wine as today...grapes squeezed, and the natural occurance of fermentation occurs.

 

Thats mans understanding of wine, and I used to share it. But I don't think God wants the cheap stuff, do you?

Nehemiah 10:39
39 For the children of Israel and the children of Levi shall bring the offering of the corn, of the new wine, and the oil, unto the chambers, where are the vessels of the sanctuary, and the priests that minister, and the porters, and the singers: and we will not forsake the house of our God.

Does God really desire an offering of cheap Thunderbird?

 

Nobody is arguing that it's the same. If you re-read the threads you say you had researched first, you'll find some explanations of how the wine is different. For example, people generally added water to wine (diluted the wine) so that the alcohol would purify the water and make it usable as a daily drink. This was considered "wine", even though it was actually a mixture of wine and water. You could conceivably drink enough to get drunk, but you'd have to drink a LOT. It wasn't anything like drinking full-strength wine today.

Also, you're ignoring the Greek word "oinos" which is wine. The context in which "oinos" is used clearly makes "oinos" alcoholic wine. Yet the grape-juicers here insist it didn't have alcohol in it even though that would make the texts just plain silly.

 

All the wines of today are alcoholic. In Bible times they were not all alcoholic. So there is a big difference.

 

The cheap wine of the OT and NT is not the same thing as Boone's Farm Apple Wine. There is no one-for-one equivalent to today's wine with OT and NT wine, just as there is no one-for-one equivalent in grape juice. There was no such thing as pasteurization back in OT and NT days.

But we all get the message. You're a reformed drunk who now believes everything must be non-alcoholic in order to be acceptable, just as a reformed smoker throws fits about the evil of cigarettes. Nobody is trying to change your opinion of alcohol. But you don't have the right to reintepret the whole Bible just because you now believe alcohol is evil. The Bible doesn't agree with you. Get over it.

 

The more you that you say it...doesn't make it true. The burden of proof is on you if you make that claim.

 

You are the one that said new wine was the cheap wine you drink to get drunk... I just question that if the old wine is truly better, why would God not tell them to bring the old wine?

 

Has nothing to do with the alcohol content...but with the flavor and consistancy. You don't believe God tasted the wine poured out...do you?

 

I think I already proved that in an earlier post that was ignored by the alcohol advocates.

" Can it be the same wine that is permitted in the Lord's Supper as the wine that is forbidden to look at when it is effervescing?"

How can the fermented wine of Proverbs that is forbidden be the same that is allowed in Matthew?

That wine (the fruit of the vine) in the Lord's Supper is not fermented wine.

 

Ask God.

If I had to guess, it's because you can make new wine quickly for the offering, and it's likely to be about the same quality every time (not guaranteed, but likely). You'd have to plan too far ahead to offer old wine, so obeying the law would be subject to the time to age the wine.

Also, there was no such thing as quality control on yeast or grapes. While new wine could never be as good or better than GOOD old wine, there was no guarantee that ALL old wine would be good. You could age wine only to find out it turned more like vinegar (which is where they got vinegar, duh).

 

Taking a verse out of context is not a proof text.

The ONLY wine that can be served at the Lords Supper was alcoholic...as that would be the ONLY drink without yeast and other contaminants...it was PURE...like Christ. You tread on the blood of Christ by stating it was an impure "juice" with leaven and bacteria in it.

 

I don't know. Do you think he smelled the offerings they burned?

Genesis 8:20-21
20 And Noah built an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.
21 And the LORD smelled a sweet savor; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.

 

You are a grape juice advocate. Most of us (I'm willing to bet ALL of us) are not aclohol advocates.

Unlike what the grape juice advocates say about wine, we're not saying grape juice is immoral. Drink what you believe is right. If you believe alcohol is evil, then it IS evil for you. Don't touch it.

 

I'm going to put my happy face back on now, and I'm going home. Goodnight, everyone.

 

Sounds anthromorphic to me. It was told to me in another thread that since God's Spirit, He doesn't have bodily features.
Nice happy face, btw... :D

 

You are falling into a formal fallacy here (formal referring to way in which you have formed your line of argumentation). I think it is called the fallacy of "allness" or "inclusion" (or something like that). What you should have said is:

I say that "most wines today are alcoholic" because if anyone produces a single bottle or glass of modern wine that is non-alcoholic (meaning that one would have to drink approximately the content of an oil supertanker full to become even slightly intoxicated;)), then the use of "all the wines of today" is proven invalid and false.

 

True. There is non-alcoholic wine today, and I'm not talking about Welch's grape juice. As far as I know, if there was non-alcoholic wine in NT times, it wasn't made the same way.