/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

No

It was alcoholic.

For thousands of years people would dilute wine with water and drink it (some places still do it to this day) as a regular beverage, as well as just traditional straight wine. Unbeknownst to them it had the effect of killing off bacteria, as well as flavoring.

Certain denominations deny that it was alcoholic because they see alcohol in any form as a vice. So they insist it was just grape juice.

>>776385

You do know what wine is made from?

>>776395

You know what he means: fermented or not?

puritan fairy tale

Wine actually had higher alcohol content during that time.

No.

Why do protestants refuse to drink what Christ drank?

Also why do they refuse to eat the body and blood of Christ?

>>776385

No one can confirm or deny this empirically, it is a mystery. My problem with this all is that drunkenness being a sin and Jesus getting people drunk is a contradiction.

>>776403

They don't get drunk though

>>776403

A single sip, or even a single cup of alcohol =/= drunk.

>>776408

>>776407

Sorry, was talking about John 2:1-11. Where it is implied that Jesus made more wine for them after they had already been drinking.

https://www.stphilipinstitute.org/videos/eucharistic-miracles

Science + Eucharistic Miracles

Nonsense. You think the apostles didn't know the difference between juice and wine? You think the Holy Spirit who inspired them to write "wine" was lying? It absolutely was alcoholic. Wine at the time had lower alcohol content because fermentation was not as well understood as it is now. Wine, however, was very often safer to drink than water because the alcohol functioned as a disinfectant and sterilizer.

>>776385

Impossible unless they pressed the grape juice fresh before drinking it, which could theoretically be done within a week of harvesting season.

The yeasts fermenting the grapes grow commensally on the grapes themselves 9the little dust layer on grapes you see, that's yeast).

As soon as grapes are pressed, the fermentation kicks in.

It's impossible to keep grape juice non-alcoholic without first boiling it and then keeping it refrigerated.

>>776389

>Unbeknownst to them it had the effect of killing off bacteria

This only works with beer brewing.

Wine has too low of an alcoholic percentage to kill off bacteria on its own, let alone when it gets diluted.

Heck, if this were true we couldn't make vinegar since you get this by bacterial oxidation of alcohol into vinegar (and some bacteria oxidizing sugars directly into vinegar).

Beer on the other hand needs to be boiled during the brewing process, so any bacteria in it get killed.

>>776415

>You think the apostles didn't know the difference between juice and wine?

Thing is, there's no real word for fruit juice in ancient languages because well…shit didn't exist.

>>776385

>Thing is, there's no real word for fruit juice in ancient languages because well…shit didn't exist.

Fun fact, vine doesn't grow in Ethiopia, so the Ethiopian church has been using a few dried grapes fermented in water as "wine" for liturgy, since its very beginning.

>>776421

>Thing is, there's no real word for fruit juice in ancient languages because well…shit didn't exist.

Nonsense. How do you think wine is made? You have to squish the fruit to produce a nonalocholic pulp juice.

the Hebrew word tirosh, "grape juice, unfermented wine," appears 38 times in the Old Testament.

>>776421

i was always taught that wine had a higher alcohol content than beer. IDK I'm not a chemist, nor do I drink outside of the Eucharist very often.

>>776431

Nah.

You are right.

Wine is stronger.

Beer is 4-8%.

Wine is 12%

>>776438

*14+%

>>776426

>the Hebrew word tirosh, "grape juice, unfermented wine," appears 38 times in the Old Testament.

It's not used to mean grape juice on its own but rather a phase of wine before it's fermented.

>>776431

>i was always taught that wine had a higher alcohol content than beer.

It has, but it takes a lot of alcohol to kill off bacteria.

The reason beer kills of bacteria is because of the brewing process which includes boiling the water.

Add to that the herbs (first some herb mix, then hops) that are anti-baterial and lengthen the shelf-life of beer and you got some pretty safe water to drink.

>>776438

I was gonna say, there are passages of them pouring wine on wounds. I don't think they would just pour grape juice on an open wound if it didn't do something useful.

>>776410

That's actually a good point. Wouldn't Jesus want to make them a drink that'd sober them up?

>>776442

It's better than nothing, and vinegar (very present in wines which would be more acidic back then due to the lack of refrigeration or added sulphites) is more potent in killing bacteria than alcohol, in a sense that a very weak acetic acid dilution can already kill off a lot of bacteria while this isn't the case with alcohol.

To give an example, to properly sterilize a would or surface one needs 70% alcohol (that is, 70g of alcohol per 100g of water) while 1% acetic acid solutions are already enough to stop a lot of bacteria and above 10% it's considered a solution to handle with care.

>>776443

It was a celebration of a wedding. Pure wine was traditionally a celebratory drink, just as it is today.

>>776388 (checked) (fpbp)

This tbh

Jesus instituted that His blood be wine because, like how wine brings joy to a man's heart, His blood shall bring joy to a man's soul.

>>776400

#NotAllProts

Most baptist churches I've been to in Virginia use a sweet wine.

>>776447

Are you trying to say drunkenness isn't a sin at weddings?

>>776453

Again, drinking =/= drunk

Anyone who has actually consumed alcohol could tell you that. The only people who don't know that are the temperance-esque denoms. Not that temperance isn't good, but you guys have a very skewed idea of the impact of alcohol.

>>776453

Like, you can drink several glasses on wine and not even be tipsy… really depends on the type of alcohol and the person.

>>776455

They were talking about being "well drunk" in John 2. The man said people usually save the worst wine for when after everyone is too drunk to care, but Jesus did the opposite by making the good wine after they were already "well drunk". Please don't reply that drunk=/=drunk.

>>776460

>Please don't reply that drunk=/=drunk.

Being "well drunk" just meant that they had had wine to drink already to the point that they were out. That doesn't mean they were wasted dude.

Again, you guys have a very skewed view of how alcohol works.

>>776476

You have a very unorthodox definition of being well drunk. The idea in John 2:10 is that those who are drunk are not going to find bad wine as offensive to the taste as those who are not drunk (and possess a more discriminating taste). Your personal definition for being drunk doesn't make sense in the context of John 2.

>Again, you guys have a very skewed view of how alcohol works

What do you mean "you guys"? I believe drunk means drunk. You're the one preforming mental gymnastics to prove drunk doesn't mean drunk.

I'll just leave these two here.

https://biblehub.com/greek/3184.htm

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/john/2.htm

>>776488

I forgot the context, but theserver is talking about a hypothetical. So the guests might not actually be totally intoxicated. Besides, if the wine is nonalcoholic, what does it mean to have had to much? Are people just vomiting grape juice at the wedding feast?

>

>I believe drunk means drunk. You're the one preforming mental gymnastics to prove drunk doesn't mean drunk.

You guys act like alcohol instantaneously intoxicates a person.

The Jews of the first century drank wine. Anyone stupid enough to think otherwise needs to see an experienced psychotherapist.

>>776497

What reason is there to believe that the server is bringing up a hypothetical that is irreverent to their current situation? I think you're trying to be slick and slippery with your interpretations here. I don't think they were drinking nonalcoholic wine before Jesus's miracle because the Greek word underlying the text literally means to be intoxicated.

>You guys act like alcohol instantaneously intoxicates a person.

Not really, but you do seem to think it is impossible to get drunk off of wine.

No. Christ said that the Jews spread rumours He was a glutton and a drunkard, they wouldn't accuse of Him of being drunken if there was no alcohol around.

>>776403

Lies. Might as well accuse Christ of causing sin.

>>776510

>What reason is there to believe that the server is bringing up a hypothetical that is irreverent to their current situation? I think you're trying to be slick and slippery with your interpretations here.

At the risk of being uncharitable, I suspect he's a Protestant of a certain flavor trying to claim that Christ allowed people to sin. Either he's defending some erroneous lesson he's internalized and directly affects how he sees God in the world of men, or he's in a sect.

>>776403

You can deny it with the words in the Bible.

> When the master of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and did not know where it came from (but the servants who had drawn the water knew), the master of the feast called the bridegroom. 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!”

The host clearly says that usually people save the bad wine for last because people will be drunk by then and don't know the difference. Therefore the wine was alcoholic and not only was it alcoholic it was apparently very high quality wine.

>>779964

The quantity is literally a tiny sip

You can forgoe the wine though and solely recieve the bread, that is the traditional practice

>>779965

Appreciated anon, I know it might sound silly to some, but drinking very nearly killed me, and now I have a young family to think of, a slip up would seriously harm other people. Is it seen as less than to only take the Eucharist? I guess I’d just tell the priest beforehand?

>>779966

I wouldn't worry one bit. But if you are still afraid of relapsing into Vice, pray the rosary on a daily if you aren't already. /ourLady/ promises that those that pray the rosary will be protected from vice and heresy.

>>779969

I’ve been off and on about my Rosary, but with Lent upon us, I’m trying again. In my daily life I have no cravings or urges for alcohol(I’ve even been a bartender before, completely sober)but I’d be worried about actually, intentionally ingesting alcohol again. I’ll talk to my Priest.

>>779966

>Is it seen as less than to only take the Eucharist?

Nope, the body and blood are both in the eucharist. Youll see many people not recieving wine.

Depends on your parish, country, tradition etc. But for the most part just don't go up to the person with wine,you can skip past them in line. If youre confused, you can always talk to the priest. I hope you have a good parish

God bless anon

Isaiah 65:8 NASB — Thus says the LORD, “As the new wine is found in the cluster, And one says, ‘Do not destroy it, for there is benefit in it,’ So I will act on behalf of My servants In order not to destroy all of them.

Wine in the Bible can mean unfermented juice

>>779993

>Isaiah 65:8

The point of that verse is about God's patience with mankind, hence the analogy. New wine is the fresh juice that you allow to ferment until it becomes proper wine. The verses about the last supper and the wedding feast only use the term wine rather than new wine, which implies that it has been fermented.

Watching Anderson twist himself into knots trying to say every instance of "wine" in the Bible means "fruit juice" is pretty funny.

>>779985

The act of people not receiving wine is a recent trend born of misplaced germaphobia and should be thoroughly discouraged.

>>780036

It's incredibly disappointing and saddening to see people put such a worldly concern over properly receiving the Eucharist.

>>776403

No such thing as empirical proof.