Did Jesus turn water into raisin-paste?

[TimCallahan]

While they often insist the Bible must be taken literally as a default position, evengelical Christians often change the actual meaning if the "Good Book" says something they don't want to hear. A classic case in point is Jesus turning water into wine at the wedding feast at Cana (Jn. 2:1 - 11), a miracle found only in the Gospel of John.

Since many evangelicals are temperence-minded, they're a bit uncomfortable with the idea of Jesus' first miracle (according to John) being the creation of more alcohol so the party can keep going. Thus, they argue that what Jesus really did was turn the water into a sort of paste made of raisins, a speread that was used on festive occasions. A Roman Catholic friend of mine, Charles Coulomb, was amused enough by this interpretation to come up with song lyrics, to the tune of "Baby Face," which he titled "Raisin Paste" ("Raisin paste / he turned the water into raisin paste," etc.)

Leaving aside the fact that Catholics don't have anything against allowing people to juice it, is there any basis for evangelical claims that Jesus turned the water into raisin paste, grape juice (which always served as communion wine at the Presbyterian church I attended while I was in high school) or something else inoccuous? To answer this, let's look at the key words in the original Koine Greek of the New Testament:

The Greek word translated as "wine" in this passage is "oinos," which means, lo and behold . . . wine! However, this isn't the real kicker. In Jn. 2:10 the steward of the feast, a sort of major domo, says to the bridegroom, "Every man serves the good wine first; and when men have drunk freely, then the poor wine; but you have kept the good wine until now." The key phrase here is "have drunk freely" or, as the King James Version puts it, "have well-drunk." The actual word thus translated is, in the original Greek, "methuo," which my Strong's Concordance - a book evangelicals swear by - says means literally, "to get drunk." Debowdlerizing the verse, the steward is actually saying, "Every man serves the good wine first; and when men have gotten drunk, then the poor wine; but you have kept the good wine until now."

So the Gospel of John, contrary to the evangelical interpretation, says that Jesus not only turned the water into wine, but did so at a party where the guests were already getting drunk. This is only one instance where evangelicals try to make their own gospel not say what it actually does. They really have coniption fits over Jesus cursing the fig tree.

[shadron]

It's always a bear making a presumably-omnisciently written document toe the line of the current mores. Downright embarrassing, at times. It can take a lot of manging to make (and keep) a book a scripture.

[Gate2501]

Jesus was a party animal?

They shouldn't be ashamed of such information! I like him better already.

[Wowbagger]

Why couldn't it have been a special form of alcohol-free wine? Jesus has an omnipotent father, right? He could make it happen.

[Jorghnassen]

Jn 2:10-11 is quite worth the read, it's my favorite passage of the Bible.

[Ron_Tomkins]

Who feeds bread and wine to his disciples anyway, and tries to make them believe that it is his flesh and blood? How amazingly deluded can such disciples be?

[hamelekim]

Nothing wrong with drinking alcohol. It's the amount you drink and your behavior that matters.

[joobz]

Growing up, I had many close pentacostal friends. I heard many similar explanations regarding Jesus and wine. The most common one was that Jesus didn't condone drinking, he was merely appeasing/obeying his mother.

Surprisingly, Jesus' morality is always in complete agreement with the pet prejudices and opinions of the person preaching.

[hamelekim]

Growing up, I had many close pentacostal friends. I heard many similar explanations regarding Jesus and wine. The most common one was that Jesus didn't condone drinking, he was merely appeasing/obeying his mother.

Surprisingly, Jesus' morality is always in complete agreement with the pet prejudices and opinions of the person preaching.

Not always, but many times, yes.

It's human nature to do such things. It's like the arguments about pre, mid, and post tribulation Rapture.

Those who agree with the pre trib position cannot fathom that Christians would have to suffer. While those who are Mid believe that we are not appointed to wrath but will suffer, hence we will be gone before the bowl judgement. The post tribulation believers are just strange.

[slingblade]

My pentecostal faith tried to teach us that the wine wasn't wine but grape juice. Which is what they serve at communion: Welch's grape juice and broken Saltine crackers.

[Elizabeth I]

Growing up, I had many close pentacostal friends. I heard many similar explanations regarding Jesus and wine. The most common one was that Jesus didn't condone drinking, he was merely appeasing/obeying his mother.

Surprisingly, Jesus' morality is always in complete agreement with the pet prejudices and opinions of the person preaching.

Similar to how, when people pray over difficult decisions, God most often tells them to do what they wanted to do all along!

[joobz]

Similar to how, when people pray over difficult decisions, God most often tells them to do what they wanted to do all along!

Dear Lord,
Should I open up the Bottle of Schlafly Barleywine that's sitting in it's box on my wine fridge?
I should?
excellent, I fully agree..

[SezMe]

The most common one was that Jesus didn't condone drinking, he was merely appeasing/obeying his mother.
Works for me. What good little Jewish kid is going to cross (so to speak) his mother.

[JoeTheJuggler]

While they often insist the Bible must be taken literally as a default position, evengelical Christians often change the actual meaning if the "Good Book" says something they don't want to hear. A classic case in point is Jesus turning water into wine at the wedding feast at Cana (Jn. 2:1 - 11), a miracle found only in the Gospel of John.

Since many evangelicals are temperence-minded, they're a bit uncomfortable with the idea of Jesus' first miracle (according to John) being the creation of more alcohol so the party can keep going. Thus, they argue that what Jesus really did was turn the water into a sort of paste made of raisins, a speread that was used on festive occasions. A Roman Catholic friend of mine, Charles Coulomb, was amused enough by this interpretation to come up with song lyrics, to the tune of "Baby Face," which he titled "Raisin Paste" ("Raisin paste / he turned the water into raisin paste," etc.)

Leaving aside the fact that Catholics don't have anything against allowing people to juice it, is there any basis for evangelical claims that Jesus turned the water into raisin paste, grape juice (which always served as communion wine at the Presbyterian church I attended while I was in high school) or something else inoccuous? To answer this, let's look at the key words in the original Koine Greek of the New Testament:

The Greek word translated as "wine" in this passage is "oinos," which means, lo and behold . . . wine! However, this isn't the real kicker. In Jn. 2:10 the steward of the feast, a sort of major domo, says to the bridegroom, "Every man serves the good wine first; and when men have drunk freely, then the poor wine; but you have kept the good wine until now." The key phrase here is "have drunk freely" or, as the King James Version puts it, "have well-drunk." The actual word thus translated is, in the original Greek, "methuo," which my Strong's Concordance - a book evangelicals swear by - says means literally, "to get drunk." Debowdlerizing the verse, the steward is actually saying, "Every man serves the good wine first; and when men have gotten drunk, then the poor wine; but you have kept the good wine until now."

So the Gospel of John, contrary to the evangelical interpretation, says that Jesus not only turned the water into wine, but did so at a party where the guests were already getting drunk. This is only one instance where evangelicals try to make their own gospel not say what it actually does. They really have coniption fits over Jesus cursing the fig tree.

Do you have examples of Christians that take this approach? I'm skeptical because if they're saying they don't like the idea of Jesus drinking wine, how do they deal with the Last Supper (or the parable of new wine in old skins which dealt directly with the process of fermentation)?

[MG1962]

I am curious - what exactly was the wine served at a Jewish wedding anyway. Are we per chance assuming it was alchoholic

[slingblade]

I am curious - what exactly was the wine served at a Jewish wedding anyway. Are we per chance assuming it was alchoholic

Oh, are you a Pentecostal, too?

AFAIK, wine is wine. It's always alcoholic. But please, do show evidence for a drink called wine in those days that had no alcoholic content. It would be interesting to read.

[Radically Rethinking]

Well, these folks claim that wine back then was a lot weaker than it is now...

In that day, wine was fermented (containing alcohol), but not necessarily to the degree it is today. It is incorrect to say that it was grape juice, but it is also incorrect to say that it was the same thing as the wine commonly used today.

http://www.gotquestions.org/sin-alcohol.html

I'm almost positive I've read that at one or two other places as well, but I can't remember where (except that they were probably also evangelical websites).

[HansMustermann]

Who feeds bread and wine to his disciples anyway, and tries to make them believe that it is his flesh and blood? How amazingly deluded can such disciples be?

Well, I'm thinking some poetic license might have been involved. My take is that, well, the next sunday must have went something like this:

Jesus: "Hi, guys. Ugh, my head is killing me."
Peter: "Hey, J-man is back! S'up dude?"
Thomas: "Who's this guy?"
Matthew: "Ya really have to cut down on the wine. I keep tellin' ya, ya have no resistance."
Jesus: "Ugh. You can say that again. I don't even remember anything between taking a drink and waking up in some tomb. And it looks like I musta been to some bad piercing parlour. I mean, this is ridiculous. What happened anyway?"
Peter: "Dude, let's say you did some crazy ****."
Jesus: "No, seriously, what happened?"
James: "Like for a start you put a baguette at your crotch and started running around yelling, 'Eat me!' And then you spilled some wine on your lap and thought you were menstruating and freaked out."
Peter: "Really crazy ****, dude."
John: "And then you went and kissed Judas. Man, that was funny ****."
Jesus: "Ouch. I must really apologize to him."
Peter: "Too late, dude. Some of us boys... well, you have to understand we were a bit tipsy too. We've been teasing him that he's a girl after that kiss, so he cried and went and hanged himself."
Jesus: "Poor guy. So what happened then? What's with the piercings?"
Matthew: "Well, then the Romans showed up to see what the ruckus was..."
James: "******* Romans!"
Matthew: "Anyway, we tried to calm ya down, but you went on babblin' about bein' the king and told them to bow down before ya, and, well, one thing leads to another and they got you nailed to a cross."
Jesus: "Now you're making this **** up. So I resurrected or something?"
James: "Nah, Peter knew the centurion, so we bribed him and took you down early. Woulda taken you even earlier, but you kept babbling stuff instead of playing dead like we told you to."
Jesus: "So why'd you leave me in a tomb if you knew I was alive?"
Peter: "Ah, right... well, we were gonna just pretend we bring you there, but we kinda got sidetracked."
Matthew: "Bunch of goth teenagers were havin' a party in the graveyard. Not my thing, but the others thought the girls were cute and left ya in a tomb while we joined the party."
James: "Ah, come on, you have to be gay to not get a stiffy at some of those. I mean, have you seen the one with the pigtails? Oooer."
Peter: "We were meaning to get you afterwards, seriously."
Bartholomew: "We just got drunk and forgot. Sorry."
James: "By the way, that's where we met the new guy too."
Peter, whispering in Jesus's ear: "The dude's not much fun, but his sister is the hottest piece of ass this side of a Babylonian barbecue."

[Aepervius]

I tried to find some info but the only info I found was on wiki, I did not check the linked source, so maybe it is worthless. But the result is 1) greek wine were strong wine in the middle age, and 2) early greek diluted their wine while drinking it 3) the majority of the wine never was kept longer to the next vintage season due to oxidation 4) it is doubtful you can drunk on very diluted alcohol content (with cidre 2% for example I never got beyond a very weak rush even after 2 litter bottle. That's fine as I dislike alcohol).

It certainly indicate to me that "all antique wine were weak" is an unfunded exageration.

[MG1962]

Oh, are you a Pentecostal, too?

AFAIK, wine is wine. It's always alcoholic. But please, do show evidence for a drink called wine in those days that had no alcoholic content. It would be interesting to read.

I am sorry you feel the need to use such an aggressive tone to a simple enquiry. I dont know the answers to the question I asked. If I did I would not ask it.

What I do know is words sometimes change their meaning over time. What we think a word means, upon investigation shows our assumption to be incorrect. From what others have posted it would appear, wine has always been fermented grape juice, and always alchoholic.

So clearly other have answered the question, and I thank them for it

[shadron]

I would assume back then that nearly everything drunk was wine to some extent. Drinking the water could certainly have been pretty sickening in most areas, what with wells being uncovered. A little alcohol never hurt anywhere near as many as plain water did.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Well, these folks claim that wine back then was a lot weaker than it is now...



http://www.gotquestions.org/sin-alcohol.html

I'm almost positive I've read that at one or two other places as well, but I can't remember where (except that they were probably also evangelical websites).

I don't much buy this argument. First, the charge in the OP is that when Jesus changed water into wine at Cana, it wasn't alcoholic wine. Saying that wine in general had less alcohol doesn't make it not alcoholic wine.

Second, there are plenty of biblical references to getting drunk on wine. In Luke, John the Baptist is described as one who never drank wine. The New Testament (especially in Paul's epistles) has several admonitions not to drink wine or at least not too much wine. (Titus 2: 2-4 even mentions addiction to wine.)

In Acts 2, the "pentecost", when the apostles preach in tongues, some people thought maybe they were drunk, but Peter tells them they are not:
13Some, however, made fun of them and said, "They have had too much wine.[b]"

14Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice and addressed the crowd: "Fellow Jews and all of you who live in Jerusalem, let me explain this to you; listen carefully to what I say. 15These men are not drunk, as you suppose. It's only nine in the morning!

I also already mentioned Jesus' parable of new wine in old skins (which refers to stretching the skins due to fermentation).

So there's simply no reason to believe that in the story of Jesus changing water into wine at Cana that the "wine" was meant to be something that can't make a person drunk.

[Nogbad]

I was told this by a wee free many years ago. Wee frees are tea total though so I think a bit of history bending was obligatory.

[joobz]

Recipe to make wine:
crush grapes and wait.

The Natural yeasts ferment the sugars into alcohol until they can nolonger tollerate the alcohol content. For the yeasts that naturally occur on grapes, this is ~11%.

Now, if we are to assume the story that the wine was weaker than, that would mean that the natural yeasts are less tollerant to alcohol than modern yeasts. The only way you can make such an argument is if you claim that the grape yeasts have evolved during that time.

[Foster Zygote]

The post tribulation believers are just strange.

Belief that the Rapture will occur at all is just strange.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I was told this by a wee free many years ago. Wee frees are tea total though so I think a bit of history bending was obligatory.

I'm a non-drinker myself, but I see no need to make bizarre and unsubstantiated rewrites of traditional Bible stories.


Now, if we are to assume the story that the wine was weaker than, that would mean that the natural yeasts are less tollerant to alcohol than modern yeasts. The only way you can make such an argument is if you claim that the grape yeasts have evolved during that time.

And that people could still get drunk and even addicted to the result, which kind of makes the argument that the wine was weaker pointless.

[TimCallahan]

Growing up, I had many close pentacostal friends. I heard many similar explanations regarding Jesus and wine. The most common one was that Jesus didn't condone drinking, he was merely appeasing/obeying his mother.

Surprisingly, Jesus' morality is always in complete agreement with the pet prejudices and opinions of the person preaching.

Let's see if Jesus was obeying his mother or not. Here's John 2:3 - 5:

When the wine failed, the mother of Jesus said to him, "They have no wine." And Jesus said to her, "O woman, what have you to do with me? My hour has not yet come." Hes mother said to the servants, "Do whatever he tells you."

I suppose, since she gave instructions to the servants to do whatever he told them, coupled with the fact that he did make water into wine, he was going along with her wishes. However, "O woman, what have you to do with me?" doesn't sound all that resepctful. Your Pentacoastal friends were stretching things a bit. I wonder how they read 1 Timothy 5:23:

No longer drink only water, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments.

I suppose medicinal wine was acceptable.

Of course the real kicker is that turning water into wine, which we might otherwise consider frivolous, was originally a miracle performed by Dionysos, another dying-and-rising god.

[slingblade]

I am sorry you feel the need to use such an aggressive tone to a simple enquiry. I dont know the answers to the question I asked. If I did I would not ask it.

I see what you did there.

Do you always consider "please" to be aggressive speech?


Are we per chance assuming it was alchoholic[?]

Well, I've read the bible, you see, many times. And I know from that source that every other time wine was mentioned, it was as an alcohol-laden beverage. Therefore, I would be quite surprised if there was one instance, and only one, in which the reader is to assume, without any other contextual clues, that this wine might not have an alcoholic content.

What I do know is words sometimes change their meaning over time. What we think a word means, upon investigation shows our assumption to be incorrect. From what others have posted it would appear, wine has always been fermented grape juice, and always alchoholic.

So clearly other have answered the question, and I thank them for it

Many words do change, have changed, meaning over time. But when the word "wine" has the same meaning throughout a single text like the bible, it is disingenuous to suggest that in this one case, the word might possibly have a different meaning than it did in all the other times it was used in that text.

[JoeTheJuggler]

And I know from that source that every other time wine was mentioned, it was as an alcohol-laden beverage.

Exactly.

I've seen dozens of mentions of "wine" that was clearly referring to an alcoholic drink and not one single case that clearly meant "wine" was something that contained little or no alcohol. I also haven't seen any use of "wine" where that meaning could even reasonably be inferred.

[HansMustermann]

Recipe to make wine:
crush grapes and wait.

The Natural yeasts ferment the sugars into alcohol until they can nolonger tollerate the alcohol content. For the yeasts that naturally occur on grapes, this is ~11%.

Now, if we are to assume the story that the wine was weaker than, that would mean that the natural yeasts are less tollerant to alcohol than modern yeasts. The only way you can make such an argument is if you claim that the grape yeasts have evolved during that time.

There is a good argument to be made that yeasts did get selected to tolerate more and more alcohol content. But nevertheless, we have plenty of descriptions elsewhere of wine having enough alcohol to get people drunk. _Long_ before AD times.

At any rate, we have plenty of descriptions of sweetening the wine after production. The dumbest idea probably being the lead acetate the Romans used to that end. The greeks did it by boiling some unfermented juice (so the yeast died) and adding it to the fermented wine.

What that tells me is that:

A) raw juice was sweet enough to be used as a sweetener, but

B) fermented wine wasn't.

That tells me that the yeast they used was resistant enough to convert most -- possibly all -- the sugar in the grapes into alcohol. That's not a weak wine.

We also know that when they wanted sour wine, they used non-ripe grapes. So, yes, there must have been a signifficant difference back then too, with the ripe ones containing significant amount of sugar.

Also, Hippocrates figured out it can be used as an antiseptic. That would indicate a significant concentration of alcohol, unless _all_ bacteria and fungi back then were incredibly weak to alcohol. That's well over 400 years before Jesus's miracle, btw.

[I Ratant]

Let's see if Jesus was obeying his mother or not. Here's John 2:3 - 5:

When the wine failed, the mother of Jesus said to him, "They have no wine." And Jesus said to her, "O woman, what have you to do with me? My hour has not yet come." Hes mother said to the servants, "Do whatever he tells you."

I suppose, since she gave instructions to the servants to do whatever he told them, coupled with the fact that he did make water into wine, he was going along with her wishes. However, "O woman, what have you to do with me?" doesn't sound all that resepctful. Your Pentacoastal friends were stretching things a bit. I wonder how they read 1 Timothy 5:23:

No longer drink only water, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments.

I suppose medicinal wine was acceptable.

Of course the real kicker is that turning water into wine, which we might otherwise consider frivolous, was originally a miracle performed by Dionysos, another dying-and-rising god.
.
And, the best wine was saved for last... i.e., that which was created by the J-guy. It's in the Book!

[I Ratant]

...
Many words do change, have changed, meaning over time. But when the word "wine" has the same meaning throughout a single text like the bible, it is disingenuous to suggest that in this one case, the word might possibly have a different meaning than it did in all the other times it was used in that text.
.
The underlined...That's a common device in the world disconnected from reality the true believer exists in.

[MG1962]

.
The underlined...That's a common device in the world disconnected from reality the true believer exists in.

You just stick with that line of reasoning, it will be so much easier for you.

[MG1962]

I see what you did there.

Do you always consider "please" to be aggressive speech?

I find statements like this as over agressive

AFAIK, wine is wine. It's always alcoholic. But please, do show evidence for a drink called wine in those days that had no alcoholic content. It would be interesting to read.

I was unaware that according to forum rules, or general human enquiry that the asker of a question had to provide references for the anticipated answer, before that answer is given.



Well, I've read the bible, you see, many times. And I know from that source that every other time wine was mentioned, it was as an alcohol-laden beverage. Therefore, I would be quite surprised if there was one instance, and only one, in which the reader is to assume, without any other contextual clues, that this wine might not have an alcoholic content.



Try living in another culture that speaks the same language as you. Then you will find out how a word out of context can completely loose its meaning.



Many words do change, have changed, meaning over time. But when the word "wine" has the same meaning throughout a single text like the bible, it is disingenuous to suggest that in this one case, the word might possibly have a different meaning than it did in all the other times it was used in that text.

I am not suggesting anything of the sort. The particular reference we are discussing is wine at a Jewish wedding ceremony. I dont know Jewish attitudes to alchohol, nor what a Jewish wedding ceremony actually entails.

In certain ceremonies in the Catholic Church, part of the ritual is to be annointed by oil. I can go down to Walmart and by a variety of oil, none of which are the same as used by the Church. We know this because we have the cultural context. Reading a story 2000 years old, written potentially 300 years after the event, means (In my mind) that some cultural context has to be sort.

But it is all mute anyway. I dont give a tinkers cuss, what sort of buzz the plonk the after-party used gave them. If Jews back then were total pisspots and into the grape, good luck to them

[TimCallahan]

As to the alcohol content of the oinos (wine) being served at the wedding feast in Cana, remember that in the story the steward of the feast tells the bridegroom that most people serve the good stuff first and then, after everyone has "well drunk" (KJV) or has "drunk freely" (RSV) they serve the inferior wine, "But you've saved the best until last." Remember also that the terms used in the KJV and RSV, and similar terms used in other English translations of the Bible, are somewhat bowdlerized translations of the Greek verb "methuo," which means "to get drunk." So, regardless of what the word wine (oinos) might otherwise signify, the beverage in question contined alcohol sufficient for inebriation. Even if the wine was watered down, guests were still getting drunk.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Try living in another culture that speaks the same language as you. Then you will find out how a word out of context can completely loose its meaning.
It sounds like you're trying to make this a personal issue. In fact, if you're arguing that "wine" in the Bible could refer to something that was not alcoholic, you've yet to provide any evidence for it. Several of us have offered lots of evidence that "wine" always means an alcoholic beverage that can get you drunk.



In certain ceremonies in the Catholic Church, part of the ritual is to be annointed by oil. I can go down to Walmart and by a variety of oil, none of which are the same as used by the Church. We know this because we have the cultural context.
That's a faulty argument by analogy. There is no analogous meaning of "wine" that isn't alcoholic.


But it is all mute [sic] anyway. I dont give a tinkers cuss, what sort of buzz the plonk the after-party used gave them.
I only quote this to point out that in a discussion of the meanings of words, it's ironic that you'd mistake "mute" for "moot".

[I Ratant]

...
I only quote this to point out that in a discussion of the meanings of words, it's ironic that you'd mistake "mute" for "moot".
.
"The underlined...That's a common device in the world disconnected from reality the true believer exists in."

[Ian Osborne]

In fact, if you're arguing that "wine" in the Bible could refer to something that was not alcoholic, you've yet to provide any evidence for it. Several of us have offered lots of evidence that "wine" always means an alcoholic beverage that can get you drunk.

He wasn't arguing he was asking. People seem to think he was making a point, when in fact all he did was identify a possible alternative interpretation and ask the forum if it holds water. Or wine.

That's a faulty argument by analogy. There is no analogous meaning of "wine" that isn't alcoholic.

And that's precisely the information he was looking for.

I only quote this to point out that in a discussion of the meanings of words, it's ironic that you'd mistake "mute" for "moot".

Aww, keep mute! :D

Joking aside, words frequently do differ in meaning across time and cultures (how many Americans here keep faggots in their fridge?). Whether this is the case here is a fair question, though the answer would appear to be 'no'.

[JoeTheJuggler]

He wasn't arguing he was asking. People seem to think he was making a point, when in fact all he did was identify a possible alternative interpretation and ask the forum if it holds water. Or wine.
His last post sure looks like he's arguing, not asking. If he was asking, then he'd already been answered prior to that post.

He argued that in different countries the same word can have different meanings, but that doesn't seem to be the case with "wine" and certainly wasn't the case with that word in the Bible. He then proceeded to argue by analogy that since "oil" can be ambiguous (and refer to many different types of oil) that "wine" must also be similarly ambiguous and could even refer to something without alcohol. (If I've mischaracterized these two lines of argument, then what did all that stuff mean?)




Joking aside, words frequently do differ in meaning across time and cultures (how many Americans here keep faggots in their fridge?). Whether this is the case here is a fair question, though the answer would appear to be 'no'.
Trouble is, we're not talking about words in general. And the "no" is very definite, yet he's still arguing the point. The evidence it would take is at least one example of "wine" used in the Bible that clearly referred to something that couldn't get you drunk. In fact, it's consistently used such that it's clear that wine is something that can get you drunk and can even be addicting.

My first response to the OP was that I doubted that anyone actually took such an absurd and easily refuted position. It sounded to me like a straw man since it's so obviously wrong. If MG1962 isn't supporting this very weak position, then, again, what is he arguing? (I don't buy that he's just asking--not after his last post.)

[slingblade]

I find statements like this as over agressive

Then you are overly sensitive or spoiling for a fight, because I assure you, I deliberately took pains to word that in the most neutral and non-confrontational manner I could.

AFAIK, wine is wine. It's always alcoholic.

Those are simple statements. As far as I know, wine IS wine, and it is always alcoholic. How is saying so in such a bland way being aggressive, much less overly so? Does anyone else here find this "aggressive" on my part?

But please, do show evidence for a drink called wine in those days that had no alcoholic content.

You asked if we were assuming the wine at the Wedding at Cana was alcoholic. What else would anyone assume, unless they knew of a drink also called "wine" that had no alcohol? I don't know of such a drink, but it sounded as if you might. I simply asked you to share the information you seemed to have. I even said "please," and I chose the word deliberately. My mom called that good manners.

It would be interesting to read.

Again, just a simple comment. It would be interesting to read about two drinks commonly consumed in that time, both called wine, one of which had no alcohol. I would be learning something new. I usually welcome that opportunity.


I was unaware that according to forum rules, or general human enquiry that the asker of a question had to provide references for the anticipated answer, before that answer is given.

Did I, in fact, threaten you or tell you there was such a rule, and you had to obey it? No? Then why even bring this up? You sound awfully defensive, but I can't imagine why.

I am also unaware of a rule that says I can't ask a simple question without being labeled "overly aggressive" for simply asking it.

Try living in another culture that speaks the same language as you. Then you will find out how a word out of context can completely loose its meaning.

Within the same document, taken in context, and with no other contextual clues?

Well, I am a student of language and of writing (I even have a degree in the art of writing), and I can tell you that this happens only rarely, if at all.

And the word you wanted there was "lose," not "loose."


I am not suggesting anything of the sort. The particular reference we are discussing is wine at a Jewish wedding ceremony. I dont know Jewish attitudes to alchohol, nor what a Jewish wedding ceremony actually entails.

Oh, artfully done! Still disingenuous, but artful.

Oh, and you can buy a bottle of Mogen David at any liquor store.

In certain ceremonies in the Catholic Church, part of the ritual is to be annointed by oil. I can go down to Walmart and by a variety of oil, none of which are the same as used by the Church. We know this because we have the cultural context. Reading a story 2000 years old, written potentially 300 years after the event, means (In my mind) that some cultural context has to be sort.

There are stories in the bible about people being annointed with oil. There is also a story about a widow who had no money to buy olive oil, but by a miracle, was blessed with a jug of oil that did not run dry until several vessels had been filled.

As a student of many subjects, I also happen to know that the oil used to annoint as well as to cook in those days by those people, was mostly likely olive oil.

I am able to distinguish between these two uses for the same oil by the contextual clues provided. But I have no experience with two beverages in the bible called "wine" that had an alcoholic and a non-alcoholic version. The text provides no clues for such a distinction. Why, then, would I assume that unlikely scenario, than the most likely one: that all wine is alcoholic?

But it is all mute anyway.

The word you wanted that time was "moot."

I dont give a tinkers cuss, what sort of buzz the plonk the after-party used gave them.

Uh, neither do I?

If Jews back then were total pisspots and into the grape, good luck to them

And what would they need luck for? They're kind of....long dead?

Your responses here seem odd. It seems as if you think drinking alcohol is not a good thing, and so are casting about for some way to show that perfect Jesus wasn't really drinking or providing alcohol. But I could be wrong. Hope that wasn't overly aggressive of me.

[slingblade]

He wasn't arguing he was asking. People seem to think he was making a point, when in fact all he did was identify a possible alternative interpretation and ask the forum if it holds water. Or wine.

He said we were assuming so. My reply was basically that of course we assume so: wine is wine. But his asking his question led me to believe he knows of something else we were to instead assume: that "wine" sometimes refers to a non-alcoholic beverage. I just wanted to know why he thought we might be making a false assumption.

I wonder if this question would have been asked by anyone if the word in question was not "wine" but "whiskey?"


Joking aside, words frequently do differ in meaning across time and cultures (how many Americans here keep faggots in their fridge?). Whether this is the case here is a fair question, though the answer would appear to be 'no'.

So my asking if he had any contrary information that informed his question was not fair?

[Cayvmann]

His last post sure looks like he's arguing, not asking. If he was asking, then he'd already been answered prior to that post.

He argued that in different countries the same word can have different meanings, but that doesn't seem to be the case with "wine" and certainly wasn't the case with that word in the Bible. He then proceeded to argue by analogy that since "oil" can be ambiguous (and refer to many different types of oil) that "wine" must also be similarly ambiguous and could even refer to something without alcohol. (If I've mischaracterized these two lines of argument, then what did all that stuff mean?)





Arguing, or giving you context for why he asked the question? You assumed from the start that he was arguing and treated him accordingly. I really don't think he was, initially.

[slingblade]

Arguing, or giving you context for why he asked the question? You assumed from the start that he was arguing and treated him accordingly. I really don't think he was, initially.

And he assumed I was being "overly aggressive" just for asking him to clear up his question of "assumptions." Going to take him to task for that? Or is that all right with you?

[MG1962]

It sounds like you're trying to make this a personal issue. In fact, if you're arguing that "wine" in the Bible could refer to something that was not alcoholic, you've yet to provide any evidence for it. Several of us have offered lots of evidence that "wine" always means an alcoholic beverage that can get you drunk.

Sadly it appears you missed this part of post #20 in this thread

So clearly other have answered the question, and I thank them for it



That's a faulty argument by analogy. There is no analogous meaning of "wine" that isn't alcoholic.

It is faulty once a person knows there is no analogous meaning. Which was the point of the orginal question


I only quote this to point out that in a discussion of the meanings of words, it's ironic that you'd mistake "mute" for "moot".

One of these days I will learn not to bother attempting to type before my first coffee of the day

[MG1962]

You asked if we were assuming the wine at the Wedding at Cana was alcoholic. What else would anyone assume, unless they knew of a drink also called "wine" that had no alcohol? I don't know of such a drink, but it sounded as if you might. I simply asked you to share the information you seemed to have. I even said "please," and I chose the word deliberately. My mom called that good manners.

Okay thats fair enough and I accept that explanation. I do know today you can buy non alcholic wine. I used to buy it for my kids at New Years so they could feel all grown up. It tasted like a really bad spumante and looked like a sparkling wine.

How it was made, or what ingredients were used I could not tell you. Nor could I tell you anything about the history of such products, hence my original question

[HansMustermann]

You're probably thinking of "must", which incidentally does come from "vinum mustum" or "young wine". It's usually made by boiling the juice so the yeast die out.

The problem is that it won't stay unfermented for long, unless you use preservatives or its sealed in an airtight container. It only takes the slightest yeast contamination for it to start fermenting. So such a juice won't stay unfermented for long in a non-modern setting.

Or there's another way: turn it into concentrated syrup (e.g., by boiling it long enough that the water evaporates away), since a high concentration of sugar won't ferment. The Romans did just that.

Well, that leads us to another problem: there is buggerall evidence that it was used for anything except as a sweetener in cooking. It wasn't used for drinking.

I suppose you could add water to get a non-alcoholic juice for a party, but that soo ruins the whole miracle, you know? If all Jesus did was... turn water into something which _is_ water mixed with concentrated fruit juice, that's not very miraculous, is it? You just need a jar of Sapa (really concentrated juice made by the Romans) to pretty much just turn a barrel of water into must. I'm pretty sure I've done that miracle before, and soft drink makers do it on an industrial scale daily ;)

Think about it. _If_ they were actually serving such stuff at a party that wasn't on the day they harvested the grape, that was the only way to do it: first boil it to concentrate, then add water when you need it. Effectively turning water into must.

Again, there is no record that anyone drank such stuff, but just saying.

Turning it into alcoholic wine, now that's a harder proposition, since they hadn't invented distilation yet. So you can't just take a bottle of brandy and add it to the water, because there was no such bottle in existence. _That_ has a more honest claim to being a miracle.

[slingblade]

Okay thats fair enough and I accept that explanation. I do know today you can buy non alcholic wine. I used to buy it for my kids at New Years so they could feel all grown up. It tasted like a really bad spumante and looked like a sparkling wine.

How it was made, or what ingredients were used I could not tell you. Nor could I tell you anything about the history of such products, hence my original question

All right, that's fair, too, and I thank you. Honestly, no BS, no tricks. Just "thanks." :)

[Beerina]

I once heard (for what it's worth :) ) that wine back then was weaker and drunk more regularly, what with it being harder to preserve pure water and all. Not that people couldn't get drunk, as they obviously could and did, or that strong wines didn't exist, but that general dinner wine as part of the ceremony didn't mean "we're gonna get hammered," or even just buzzed, is intended to be part of the ceremony.

True or not, it would provide another psychological "out" for the modern religious who find the idea of swilling booze as part of the official, God-recommended ceremonies distasteful.

[HansMustermann]

You're partially right, but actually they mixed the wine with water to not get drunk. The wine itself, at least the quality stuff, as I was saying, that yeast did convert almost all sugar into alcohol, so...

There was however a cheaper wine produced. The juice for the good wine came, as expected from pressing the grapes. But then they'd soak the crushed grapes in water, let it soak for a while, then drain the water and ferment it. As you can guess, there wasn't that much sugar left for this second batch, so it didn't end up very alcoholic, nor did it have much flavour. The poor generally drank this poor quality wine.

Add to that that inkeepers and dishonest merchants of all ages had discovered that you can add water to increase your profits... yeah, you had to drink quite a bit of that to get drunk.

[TimCallahan]

Weaker or stronger, the steward of the feast still tells the bridegroom that most people serve the good stuff first, then the inferior wine when everyone has "well drunk" or has "drunk freely." Again, this word in the original Greek is "methuo" meaning literally "to get drunk." There really is no out here for advocates of the Temperance Movement.

[boloboffin]

Those wines usually have a huge distinctive flavor. I understand the interpretation that it's the alcohol that being referred to, but I also think that it could be flavor. The better wines come out first, and then when you have a slight buzz and your taste buds are saturated, the groom brings out the low-content worse-tasting stuff. I don't see any basis for denying alcohol in the wines, but dulling the taste buds fits the metaphor just as aptly as dulling the brain.

[HansMustermann]

Weaker or stronger, the steward of the feast still tells the bridegroom that most people serve the good stuff first, then the inferior wine when everyone has "well drunk" or has "drunk freely." Again, this word in the original Greek is "methuo" meaning literally "to get drunk." There really is no out here for advocates of the Temperance Movement.

Well, both kinds of wines I mentioned were in fact alcoholic, and I'm guessing that even the second kind was more alcoholic than a beer. So, yes, I'm not saying it was raisin paste or anything.

I'm just addressing the idea that yeasts may have produced less alcohol back then, and I'm saying that probably not or not by much. There were inferior wines too, but that was not the norm or the upper limit.

Bit of a tangential point, really.

[HansMustermann]

Those wines usually have a huge distinctive flavor. I understand the interpretation that it's the alcohol that being referred to, but I also think that it could be flavor. The better wines come out first, and then when you have a slight buzz and your taste buds are saturated, the groom brings out the low-content worse-tasting stuff. I don't see any basis for denying alcohol in the wines, but dulling the taste buds fits the metaphor just as aptly as dulling the brain.

Well, those would get dulled because of the alcohol too. If you're not drunk, drinking something that tastes like crap after something that tastes good, well, it will just serve to make the former seem even worse by contrast.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Sadly it appears you missed this part of post #20 in this thread
I didn't miss it.

But I noted that post number 34 (what I called your "most recent post" happened after post 20. In post 34, you appear to press the argument. That's were you again pushed the idea that the word "wine" as applied to Jewish weddings might mean something non-alcoholic and then made the analogy to oil.

You

As I said, it appeared that you were pressing the case that seemed to have been settled.


That's a faulty argument by analogy. There is no analogous meaning of "wine" that isn't alcoholic.
It is faulty once a person knows there is no analogous meaning. Which was the point of the orginal question
Yep. But you conceded that "wine" means an alcoholic drink back in post 20, didn't you? Or maybe you didn't?

I do know today you can buy non alcholic wine. I used to buy it for my kids at New Years so they could feel all grown up. It tasted like a really bad spumante and looked like a sparkling wine.
That's grape juice. Even the stuff bottled to look like champagne is called "sparkling grape juice". You buy it in the grocery store (at least here) next to other grape juices and fruit juices, not next to the wine.

ETA: I take that back. I've only just now learned of the existence of actual non-alcoholic wine. It's made like regular wine, and then the alcohol is somehow cold-filtered out. However, unless you have some evidence of this technology existing some 2000 years ago, it's irrelevant.

[JoeTheJuggler]

At any rate, other than MG who isn't *quite* arguing that the wine Jesus made wasn't alcoholic, is there anyone who actually truly holds that position?

I'm still a bit skeptical. (ETA: That is, I think we're engaging in a straw man argument. It's obvious and easy to show that the wine mentioned in the Cana miracle was meant as an alcoholic drink, but I'm not sure anyone really holds the position that it meant something non-alcoholic--assuming MG does not.)

Again, what do they do about the Last Supper (which, if nothing else, showed that Jesus and his crew customarily drank wine with, at the very least, their Passover meal).

[JoeTheJuggler]

Arguing, or giving you context for why he asked the question? You assumed from the start that he was arguing and treated him accordingly. I really don't think he was, initially.

Please read his post number 34 and tell me if he sounds convinced that wine meant an alcoholic beverage? It sure looks like he's arguing the point. (He may have just been asking a question initially, but that's not the part I was responding to. I quoted post 34.)

I'm not sure how providing "context for why he asked the question" would involve the stuff about living in another country (and assuming that none of us here have done so) or the bad analogy to oil used in a Catholic sacrament. And I don't know what the point of providing context would be if he accepted the answer to his question.

[slingblade]

At any rate, other than MG who isn't *quite* arguing that the wine Jesus made wasn't alcoholic, is there anyone who actually truly holds that position?

I'm still a bit skeptical. (ETA: That is, I think we're engaging in a straw man argument. It's obvious and easy to show that the wine mentioned in the Cana miracle was meant as an alcoholic drink, but I'm not sure anyone really holds the position that it meant something non-alcoholic--assuming MG does not.)

Again, what do they do about the Last Supper (which, if nothing else, showed that Jesus and his crew customarily drank wine with, at the very least, their Passover meal).

That's communion.

My religious upbringing taught us that alcohol is always evil and sinful, so Jesus couldn't have been drinking actual wine, ever, at any time. Remember, we're talking cherry-picking Fundies here, after all. This means they largely ignore Paul's advice about "a little wine being good for the stomach."

I was probably close to adulthood before I realized that Catholics used actual wine for the Sacrament, and I recall being quite shocked. As said, my churches always used Welch's grape juice.

It's not a strawman. It's actually the position of some religious.

[HansMustermann]

So you guys had sorta Lord's Blood Lite for communion? ;)

[slingblade]

So you guys had sorta Lord's Blood Lite for communion? ;)

Absolutely. :D

Communion was held on the first Sunday of each month, and consisted of regular saltine crackers being broken into small pieces on a metal plate (or paten), with a tiny plastic cup (more like a big thimble) filled with grape juice.

A couple of churches I went to used those oyster crackers instead.

[I Ratant]

The priest would pass out the awfully dry wafers to us at the Communion Rail, but only he got to drink the wine.
And had to scarf down all the wafers not distributed for that mass.
And despite what Tom Lehrer said, the wafer was never chewed.
You had to let it dissolve against the roof of your mouth.
I left the church before that ritual changed, if it has.

[JoeTheJuggler]

That's communion.

My religious upbringing taught us that alcohol is always evil and sinful, so Jesus couldn't have been drinking actual wine, ever, at any time. Remember, we're talking cherry-picking Fundies here, after all. This means they largely ignore Paul's advice about "a little wine being good for the stomach."

I was probably close to adulthood before I realized that Catholics used actual wine for the Sacrament, and I recall being quite shocked. As said, my churches always used Welch's grape juice.

It's not a strawman. It's actually the position of some religious.

Wow. I'd never heard this. (Catholic background--alcohol was almost mandatory for every occasion.)

Man, I can only imagine the tortured apologetics.

So at the Last Supper, this version of Jesus who never drank alcohol, yet no one every remarked on it (as they did with John the Baptist)--no one thought it was unusual that he had wine and was about to serve it to them?

I also have a tough time understanding this Carrie Nation sort of Jesus teaching with the parable of new wine in old skins without making some sort of statement of disapproval of wine.

I've seen some pretty far-out believers in discussion on the JREF forum, but I don't think I've ever seen anyone defend something this silly (again, assuming MG isn't).

[JoeTheJuggler]

The priest would pass out the awfully dry wafers to us at the Communion Rail, but only he got to drink the wine.
And had to scarf down all the wafers not distributed for that mass.
And despite what Tom Lehrer said, the wafer was never chewed.
You had to let it dissolve against the roof of your mouth.
I left the church before that ritual changed, if it has.

The last couple of funerals I went to, most people receiving communion also got a sip of wine/blood. For a while now, too, they've allowed you to receive the wafer in your hand to put it in your mouth yourself. (That all happened long after my apostasy, but I'm still very close with my huge family who are nearly all practicing Catholics.)

Oh yeah--the last Catholic church I was in (just over a week ago for a funeral) didn't even have a communion rail!

[slingblade]

Wow. I'd never heard this. (Catholic background--alcohol was almost mandatory for every occasion.)

Man, I can only imagine the tortured apologetics.

So at the Last Supper, this version of Jesus who never drank alcohol, yet no one every remarked on it (as they did with John the Baptist)--no one thought it was unusual that he had wine and was about to serve it to them?

They said it wasn't really wine; that it was more like grape juice, but "back then in Jesus' time, any drink made with grapes was always called 'wine.'"

Which is what I thought MG1962 was saying, and why I wanted him to tell us why he'd think so. Apparently he wasn't, and we've made nice. :)

[Elizabeth I]

I was probably close to adulthood before I realized that Catholics used actual wine for the Sacrament, and I recall being quite shocked. As said, my churches always used Welch's grape juice.

It's not a strawman. It's actually the position of some religious.

...and when I used to visit Mormon churches with my friends when I was a kid, they had cups of waterand little cubes of bread for communion.