Madkins007

Exactly. The prohibions I was talking about are those issued from the pulpits, NOT the Bible. There is NO Biblical basis for a lot of the teachings in churches today.

chapka

As far as I can parse this, you're saying that "just because my source doesn't prove that the drinking of nonalcoholic grape juice was common doesn't mean that it was uncommon."

We know that alcoholic beverages were the most common beverages throughout most of the area in the relevant time periods, and we've recovered archaeological evidence of such. That is, there is extensive evidence that the drinking of alcoholic beverages was common. If this evidence doesn't exist for nonalcoholic "wine," then it seems safe to conclude that it wasn't, in fact, that common. This is also the natural assumption based on linguistics. If there were two categories of beverage considered different by drinkers, the drinkers would inevitably develop two words for them. (For example, the terms for mead, ale, beer, and lager developed fairly quickly in recent history). If both alcoholic and nonalcoholic wine were available year-round and roughly equal in popularity, why did the drinkers--whom you seem to imply cared deeply about which they drunk--not have a separate term for them?

Regardless, you've evaded the main point: even if your source is correct, and alcoholic and non-alcoholic grape beverages were equally available year-round, there's still no reason to assume that every time wine is spoken of positively it's nonalcoholic, and every time it's spoken of negatively it's alcoholic--unless you assume as your starting point that alcohol is a bad thing. In fact, quite the opposite: as I've stated repeatedly and you've refused to address, the Cana story shows Jesus creating what is unmistakably alcoholic wine (otherwise the story doesn't make sense), and both Cana and the Last Supper are narratives of events that would have been almost unthinkable in the ancient Jewish world without wine--alcoholic wine.

Yes, of course. The link claimed to describe ways in which a few bunches of grapes could be stored, at great expense and with substantial labor, in such a way as to lose only some of their fluids. It's silly to think that substantial numbers of grapes would be stored this way for later pressing, when it would be so much cheaper and more efficient just to press them at harvest time.

diana

Also, inquisitive, there's that little problem with the verse I pointed out earlier. Why have you not addressed this?

Jesus says himself the Pharisees called him a "winebibber." A winebibber is a wino, my friend. Winos are not known for drinking in "small amounts" and avoiding drunkenness any more than gluttons are known for nibbling at their food and going hungry.

Further, Jesus does not even imply a denial of the truth of the statement. As a matter of fact, Christians point to the "friend of publicans and sinners" part as not only true, but something they're proud of. Do you think the rest of the "accusations" are not equally true? Upon what do you base this? Jesus didn't deny the charges or even imply they were misguided. In context, the only reasonable interpretation of the passage is that Jesus was saying in exasperation, "I can't win with you people!"

So...despite what you may think the rest of the bible says or implies about "the fruit of the vine" and whether it's alcoholic or non-alcoholic, Jesus said he drank lots of wine himself.

Jesus was sinless, yes? For you to claim that drinking "more than a few drops" is wrong is to say that Jesus was wrong. Is that what you wish to argue?

This passage is found in both Matthew and Luke. It isn't an anamoly, and ignoring it won't make it go away. Perhaps you never noticed it before...? Even so, now that I've pointed out it's there, you must deal with it. Failure to do so tacitly acknowledges the paucity of your position.

d