damosky12:
https://www.nairaland.com/4397144/daddy-freeze-reacts-shina-peller


The link above leads to the thread that surfaced on the front page earlier today in which the controversial OAP, Freeze, was quoted to have made a rather unfounded assertion that Jesus drank alcohol. He was quoted thus:


When Jesus was alive he drank alcohol and was accused to be in the presence of sinners (possibly in Night Clubs) so enjoying a bottle of Champagne or Henny with coke and ice at quilox in responsibility and moderation is actually Christ like.
-
◄ Matthew 11:19 ►
NIV
The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.' ----- What could he have been drinking that they labeled him a drunkard? Lucozade boost?
-
More so, another reason to patronize them lies in the fact that the club employs people who earn a living through it and it pays taxes as instructed by our first pastors, the disciples; something most pastors and churches are blatantly disobeying.


He seemed to have made this statement to advertise for the patronage of a nightclub and to call for a neglect of the church under the guise of contributing to the society.

He spoke of the nightclub to be responsible for employing people without pausing to consider that churches and institutions founded by churches (libraries, schools, housing estates,ets) provide far more employment than any nightclub.

The debate of who or who doesn't provide more employment is not the crux of this response, but to correct the rather heretic view that Jesus took alcohol.

Freeze quoted from Matthew 11:19 NIV

"The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners."

and followed it up with a lame and uncritical commentary

"that could he have been drinking that they labeled him a drunkard? Lucozade boost?"


With a statement like this, he uncritically assumes the position that the accusers were right to have called Jesus a drunkard.
If this assumption is to be taken as true, that will mean they were right as well with other positions that they made in that portion of scripture. Let's check it contextually.


Matthew 11:18-19
[18]For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil.
[19]The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.

Jesus made the statement that he was eating and drinking in opposition to what John was known to do, fasting. Eating and drinking there was not to, by any means, refer to alcohol.


Jesus was clearly not presenting the people as truth speakers but rather haters of the truth. Hence, since they could FALSELY accuse John whom Jesus himself praised as the greatest of prophets (in verses 12-14 of the same chapter) of having a devil, their allegation against Jesus as a drunkard could NEVER have been true.

In other words, if Jesus took alcohol (as Freeze's logic leads him), then John the Baptist, the fore runner of Jesus had a devil, since the allegations came from the same source.

The tone of Jesus quote in itself is that of despair rather than passive. Why would Jesus have to say they called Him a drunkard if He really was? Its simple logic.


Where did the allegation against Jesus come from?

Matthew 9:10-13
[10]And it came to pass, as Jesus sat at meat (eating) in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came and sat down with him and his disciples.
[11]And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners?
[12]But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick.
[13]But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.


As revealed above, Jesus once sat IN HIS HOUSE, eating (not in "Night Clubs" as Freeze suggests) and had the Sinners COME TO HIM. He didn't reject them(as the Pharisees would) but accepted them and shared HIS MEAL with them.

Note the immediate response of the Pharisees: "Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners?". There was no alarm about Jesus being a drunkard. Of course, if they had seen Jesus drinking alcohol, they would have been quick to point that out.
But all they saw there is Jesus sharing His meal with them. Not drinking alcohol.

So, when Jesus said: "The Son of man came eating and drinking", any literate person can see that he wasn't, by the use of 'drinking', referring to alcohol. He was referring to eating and drinking as that which you do when you take your usual meal.


Besides, what did Jesus' Apostles teach about alcohol?

1 Corinthians 5:11
[11]But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard , or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10
[9] Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
[10]Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Galatians 5:21
[21]Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.


Romans 13:13-14
[13] Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying.
[14]But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof.


Why would such "red light signals" be given to Christians as regarding alcohol if Jesus was himself a drunkard?


Be watchful of Freeze's leaven if you are a lover of Christ.

1 Peter 5:8
[8]Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:

drinking alcohol and drunkenness are different things oga.


I am a christian and I know Jesus drank alcohol.

the last time was at the last supper.


I don’t know where you fanatics get your own doctrine coined from.


drinking alcohol has never been a sin before both God and man.

but drinking until drunk can lead you to sin and should be avoided.

Next time don’t come and embarrass yourself like this.

epainos:


Jewish are/were alcoholic is not the subject, but if it is, does it equate to Jesus drinking alcohol? OMG! I am just seeing how Nigerians reason logically.

Russians drink tea without milk. Does it translate to Putin drinking tea without milk?

British drink tea with milk. Does it translate to a British born by Russian parents in the UK drinking tea with milk?

Look at the two statements. Can you see the complications there? If you can't see it, I cannot discuss it with you cos I don't have time to discuss it with kobo-junkie kind of person.

My comment has a context. You can get the context from your Bible where Jesus did the miracle of changing water to wine!
and said to him, “Every man serves the good wine first, and when the guests are drunk, then he serves the poorer wine; but you have kept the good wine until now.” John 2:10 The word translated is methysthōsin which means drunk! So the Jews do get drunk!

Reference: https://biblehub.com/john/2-10.htm

Based on your comment, here is what you are going to do:

1. Prove beyond reasonable doubt that Jewish were (note...past tense ooo) alcoholic. You will prove that they were alcoholics during Jesus' days.

2. Prove beyond reasonable doubt that Jesus took alcohol, and the evidence must be in the Bible because you wrote that he did according to my Bible.

Let me tell you my stand again: This is a debate that is older than a century and no one has been able to prove or disprove that Jesus took alcohol or did not. Even Aristotle tried, but couldn't. Please, do not ask me for my proof because I have written it in this thread. If you don't know, then you are careless in rushing things. So, I encourage you to check my posts in this thread.

If you cannot prove the two above, then, you are wasting your time. You will need to really sit down and examine your life as an anti-Christ if it is really worth it. I am not admonishing you to be a pro-Christ. Nope. I don't have a problem with atheists...infact, they are my good friends. I just need you to have something upstairs and have common sense like I do if we are to discuss. Don't be like kobo-junkie who decided to use a 2016 research study to back up his claim about what happened over 2,000 years ago. Who does that? Common sense no dey there at all. A kindergarten kid will even shake his or her head in disbelief.

The one above suffices!

BBIA:


drinking alcohol and drunkenness are different things oga.


I am a christian and I know Jesus drank alcohol.

the last time was at the last supper.


I don’t know where you fanatics get your own doctrine coined from.


drinking alcohol has never been a sin before both God and man.

but drinking until drunk can lead you to sin and should be avoided.

Next time don’t come and embarrass yourself like this.

If you want to drink alcohol, free free to indulge yourself in your drinking and drunkenness.

It's either you lack a proper command of English language or you're just rude.

I am a "fanatic" (you know what that means??) for explicitly going through the scriptures in response to an error. But you trying to validate your drunkenness or "drinking" out of all is there is the ideal believer? How absurd!

AntiChristian:


My comment has a context. You can get the context from your Bible where Jesus did the miracle of changing water to wine!
and said to him, “Every man serves the good wine first, and when the guests are drunk, then he serves the poorer wine; but you have kept the good wine until now.” John 2:10 The word translated is methysthōsin which means drunk! So the Jews do get drunk!

Reference: https://biblehub.com/john/2-10.htm





The one above suffices!

Thanks for this verse. Actually, I read this part many times while I was trying to figure it out many years ago before I understood why it cannot still mean that Jesus drank alcohol. As I said earlier, no one can prove that he did or he didn't. Let us look at the verse.

The Greek word used in that portion is: μεθυσθῶσιν (methysthōsin) as you mentioned above. It means "get drunk". You are right. However, Bro! Remember that it was the chief guest who spoke about this. He said...ha ba! Why is the best wine coming out now? The fact is this: people drink both non-alcoholic and alcoholic drinks together at parties even in Jesus' time.

I lived very well in Europe and I have lived in Russia. You cannot drink vodka without having non-alcohol present. And let me tell you something...vodka tastes almost the same there because the producers must get the particular taste Russians want otherwise, they won't buy it. Even in Nigeria...ogogoro has a particular taste that those who drink it will tell you that..." this is it". But Naija is not a standardised place. So, inferior ones can still sell. Since vodka has a unique taste, the enjoyment derived comes from the (alkaline) non-alcohol you combine with it. Russians don't even mix it. They drink vodka directly and then drink something soft to cool down the effect of its extremely low pH. So, they rarely care about the quality of vodka, but you see big boys asking for fresh juice with no artificial sweeteners. While some just put on table-packed carbonated juice with glucose syrup. Some will tell you that only organic fresh apple is what they want. While varieties of fresh or packed juices are on the table also.


In that party, there is no proof that ONLY alcoholic drinks were served. Of course, Jews always have both too during parties.

The chief guest could have meant that haba! Why bring out the best fresh grape when everyone is already drunk and they cannot drink it again? Or why bring out the best-fermented grape when people are already drunk on a low-quality fermented one?

The only way to know the kind of drink Jesus produced was to know the exact one he produced. Not from indirect comments. And Bible uses a word that means both non-alcoholic and alcoholic. So, we don't know.

You can only guess and explain based on assumptions like yours. But still, it doesn't prove whether the one Jesus produced is alcoholic or not.

As long as "oinon" is the word used for wine in that same verse which means both alcoholic and non-alcoholic, no one can prove it. Period. That word.....wine...is the ONLY way to prove it. And we don't know.

Using the word of the chief guest is not the solution. That word for wine is the ONLY way to prove it.

Please tell me about a party where you have ONLY alcoholic drinks. If you can, then, you can win this argument. But let me tell you...you can still have only non-alcoholic drinks at parties...but never only alcohol.

damosky12:


If you want to drink alcohol, free free to indulge yourself in your drinking and drunkenness.

It's either you lack a proper command of English language or you're just rude.

I am a "fanatic" (you know what that means??) for explicitly going through the scriptures in response to an error. But you trying to validate your drunkenness or "drinking" out of all is there is the ideal believer? How absurd!

Jesus broke bread and drank wine, how hard is it for you to comprehend that.

he turned water to wine too. that too you will try to modify to suit your own fanatic doctrine…


oya continue.

BBIA:

Jesus broke bread and drank wine, how hard is it for you to comprehend that.

he turned water to wine too. that too you will try to modify to suit your own fanatic doctrine…


oya continue.

I normally wouldn't indulge. But this fallacy that "wine" has to be alcohol is disturbing.

Jesus called the wine He drank "fruit of the vine." Matthew 26:29. You know what a fruit of the vine is? The words literally mean fruit from vine (those little grapes). That is grape wine. Not Hennessy.

If you want yo drink alcohol, do so with your bold mind. Don't try to justify the indulgence with this fallacy. Please...

BBIA:
Jesus broke bread and drank wine, how hard is it for you to comprehend that. he turned water to wine too. that too you will try to modify to suit your own fanatic doctrine… oya continue.

It's the lying against Jesus Christ in some irrational attempt to save him that gets me.

damosky12:


I normally wouldn't indulge. But this fallacy that "wine" has to be alcohol is disturbing.

Jesus called the wine He drank "fruit of the vine." Matthew 26:29. You know what a fruit of the vine is? The words literally mean fruit from vine (those little grapes). That is grape wine. Not Hennessy.

If you want yo drink alcohol, do so with your bold mind. Don't try to justify the indulgence with this muffled theology. Please...

wine has always been an alcoholic drink. it is called wine because it is made from fermented grape juice. check every resource available and it will state so.

non alcoholic wine became possible only in the late 1800’s when a dealcoholization method was first developed to remove alcohol from wine so that even people who don’t take alcohol could drink and the idea was business driven

For it to be wine, it must be first fermented grape juice.

stop trying to defend your ignorance and learn.
Na your type the mislead people in the name of christianity with your own bias opinions.

I wonder where you think they got non-alcoholic wine from in the days of the bible.

Kobojunkie:
It's the lying against Jesus Christ in some irrational attempt to save him that gets me.

E taya me oh!

I am a christian but these other christians the wan act holier than Jesus himself.


see one telling me that I just want to justify being a drunkard when I told him that drinking has never been a sin, but drinking to a drunk state is frowned upon because it may lead to sin .

If drinking alcohol is a sin because of drunkenness, can we also say eating food is a sin because of gluttony?

The main issue is lack of self control.

BBIA:
E taya me oh! I am a christian but these other christians the wan act holier than Jesus himself.
see one telling me that I just want to justify being a drunkard when I told him that drinking has never been a sin, but drinking to a drunk state is frowned upon because it may lead to sin .

It is frowned upon does not make it a sin. Sin(disobedience) is that which directly violates God's commandment or teaching as specified in His Law. God Himself encouraged His people to purchase alcohol and drink it in the days of their celebrations. God never put a limit on how much they could eat or drink during their feasts and celebrations.

Now, about what can cause a man to sin, in this case, Jesus Christ said that it is not what we eat that makes us unclean - Matthew 15 vs 10 - 20 and Mark 7 vs 13 - 23. It is what comes out of a man's mind that causes him to sin. No amount of food, or wine, can make a man sinful. And we know this from the fact that a drunk is not by default a criminal or a menace in society. So, to say alcohol causes a man to sin is Scripturally faulty and generally so too.

Kobojunkie:
It is frowned upon does not make it a sin. Sin(disobedience) is that which directly violates God's commandment or teaching as specified in His Law. God Himself encouraged His people to purchase alcohol and drink it in the days of their celebrations. God never put a limit on how much they could eat or drink during their feasts and celebrations.

Now, about what can cause a man to sin, in this case, Jesus Christ said that it is not what we eat that makes us unclean - Matthew 15 vs 10 - 20 and Mark 7 vs 13 - 23. It is what comes out of a man's mind that causes him to sin. No amount of food, or wine, can make a man sinful. And we know this from the fact that a drunk is not by default a criminal or a menace in society. So, to say alcohol causes a man to sin is Scripturally faulty and generally so too.

at least when he/she is sober, his or her morals are in check (for that which he or she can control)

do you want to disregard the fact that at some level of high intoxication, self control is lost?

BBIA:
■ at least when he/she is sober, his or her morals are in check (for that which he or she can control)
■ do you want to disregard the fact that at some level of high intoxication, self control is lost?

1. We are talking of sin here and not mere morals, right? And recall that God sees into the hearts of men. So, regardless of whether one's morals are in check so long as the heart is filled with evil such a person remains condemned by God.

2. Every day across the world, 10s of 1000s, even millions of people get drunk and lose self-control every day around the world, yet they never commit crimes, moral or criminal for that matter. Only a handful commit crimes.

Kobojunkie:
1. We are talking of sin here and not mere morals, right? And recall that God sees into the hearts of men. So, regardless of whether one's morals are in check so long as the heart is filled with evil such a person remains condemned by God.

2. Every day across the world, 10s of 1000s, even millions of people get drunk and lose self-control every day around the world, yet they never commit crimes, moral or criminal for that matter. Only a handful commit crimes.

why do you sound like Jehovahs witness people?

morals check your actions.

certain actions lead to sin. why try to totally separate them?

BBIA:
■ why do you sound like Jehovahs witness people?
■ morals check your actions. certain actions lead to sin. why try to totally separate them?

1. I have no connection to any Christian cult/denominations, so you would need to tell me why you think any of what I have said so far reminds you of them.

2. Yes, all humans by default apply morals/traditions when it comes to checking their actions. But morals have nothing to do with God's teachings and commandments. According to the God of Scripture, it isn't your action that leads to sin but rather the content of your mind that gets you there.

BBIA:

wine has always been an alcoholic drink. it is called wine because it is made from fermented grape juice. check every resource available and it will state so.

The first thing about you is you're trying too hard to sound smart in an area you have nearly zero clarity. Nothing in the Greek etymology for wine, "oinos," indicated alcohol.

There is ancient word for juice from fruits (which is not a modern day invention). The closest to it is what Jesus used, "FRUIT of the vine." He literally used the word drink of this FRUIT...

Virtually every ancient resource that mentions "fruit of the vine" projects it as FRUIT. The greek submission there is "gennēma ampellos" which literally indicates "vine fruit." It's so precise! But you're incoherently trying to cook up a point from nothing.

non alcoholic wine became possible only in the late 1800’s when a dealcoholization method was first developed to remove alcohol from wine so that even people who don’t take alcohol could drink and the idea was business driven

For it to be wine, it must be first fermented grape juice.

Are you doing a skit here? There has always been non alcoholic wine or "light wine." Who taught you this bradadash??

First, there was such a thing as non fermented grape juice (referred to as 'grape fruit'; which is what Jesus took). See a quote on it from ancient Roman statesman, Cato: "If you wish to have must [grape juice] all year, put grape juice in an amphora and seal the cork with pitch; sink it in a fishpond. After thirty days take it out. It will be grape juice for a whole year"

It was called grape juice. In Jesus' words, it's"fruit of the vine. Some call it wine still. But it's unfermented!

You spew ignorance with such boldness! Are you just trying to be funny?

stop trying to defend your ignorance and learn.
Na your type the mislead people in the name of christianity with your own bias opinions.

Now, this baffles me so much.

Me that I am taking a Biblical anti-alcohol stance, I am the one misleading people?

You, the freely drink alcohol ambassador, you are the one teaching truth. And this truth is so important to you that you consider it the great commission, "go into the world and drink alcohol."

Man, like I said, there's no support for your drunkenness in the Bible. Read the thread again to begin with.

If you would be an alcoholic, don't build it on Bible doctrine. There's no place for it in the Bible.

damosky12:


The first thing about you is you're trying too hard to sound smart in an area you have nearly zero clarity. Nothing in the Greek etymology for wine, "oinos," indicated alcohol.

There is ancient word for juice from fruits (which is not a modern day invention). The closest to it is what Jesus used, "FRUIT of the vine." He literally used the word drink of this FRUIT...

Virtually every ancient resource that mentions "fruit of the vine" projects it as FRUIT. The greek submission there is "gennēma ampellos" which literally indicates "vine fruit." It's so precise! But you're incoherently trying to cook up a point from nothing.



non alcoholic wine became possible only in the late 1800’s when a dealcoholization method was first developed to remove alcohol from wine so that even people who don’t take alcohol could drink and the idea was business driven

For it to be wine, it [b]must be first fermented grape juice.



Are you doing a skit here? There has always been non alcoholic wine or "light wine." Who taught you this bradadash??

First, there was such a thing as non fermented grape juice (referred to as 'grape fruit'; which is what Jesus took). See a quote on it from ancient Roman statesman, Cato: "If you wish to have must [grape juice] all year, put grape juice in an amphora and seal the cork with pitch; sink it in a fishpond. After thirty days take it out. It will be grape juice for a whole year"

It was called grape juice. In Jesus' words, it's"fruit of the vine. Some call it wine still. But it's unfermented!

You spew ignorance with such boldness! Are you just trying to be funny?




stop trying to defend your ignorance and learn.
Na your type the mislead people in the name of christianity with your own bias opinions.



Now, this baffles me so much.

Me that I am taking a Biblical anti-alcohol stance, I am the one misleading people?

You, the freely drink alcohol ambassador, you are the one teaching truth. And this truth is so important to you that you consider it the great commission, "go into the world and drink alcohol."

Man, like I said, there's no support for your drunkenness in the Bible. Read the thread again to begin with.

If you would be an alcoholic, don't build it on Bible doctrine. There's no place for it in the Bible.

This is why the knowledge of philosophy is supposed to be a prerequisite to theology to avoid people like you picking up the bible, reading random verses that only suit you and interpreting it as you see fit to gullible folks.

This specialized education should be mandatory for all preachers and interpreters of the christian doctrine. something you obviously lack in this discipline.

Abi na the holy spirit fall on you tell you this one too?

which denomination do you even attend?

BBIA:


This is why the knowledge of philosophy is supposed to be a prerequisite to theology to avoid people like you picking up the bible, reading random verses that only suit you and interpreting it as you see fit to gullible folks.

This specialized education should be mandatory for all preachers and interpreters of the christian doctrine. something you obviously lack in this discipline.

You don't sound like someone grounded in any semblance of basic socratic elenchus, talk less of proper philosophy. What do you know in philosophy, please?

Apparently, you have no textual proof that I took any of the Bible text out of its original context. If you have any, put it to me. I dare you!

Abi na the holy spirit fall on you tell you this one too?

which denomination do you even attend?

Leave jamboree. Learn and move on. God does not serve your appetite.

damosky12:


You don't sound like someone grounded in any semblance of basic socratic elenchus, talk less of proper philosophy. What do you know in philosophy, please?

Apparently, you have no textual proof that I took any of the Bible text out of its original context. If you have any, put it to me. I dare you!



Leave jamboree. Learn and move on. God does not serve your appetite.

which denomination do you attend?

damosky12:


If you want to drink alcohol, free free to indulge yourself in your drinking and drunkenness.

It's either you lack a proper command of English language or you're just rude.

I am a "fanatic" (you know what that means??) for explicitly going through the scriptures in response to an error. But you trying to validate your drunkenness or "drinking" out of all is there is the ideal believer? How absurd!

You actually sound like a fanatic because you're trying to disprove scientific logic to justify your belief.

BBIA and kobojunkie are 💯 right.

The Bible is clear about Jesus drinking wine. Wine is fruit that has undergone fermentation. That's why it's called wine. our grandparents and fore fathers enjoyed wine let alone people of old. Infact the wine had lots of health benefits if you understand the science behind fermentation.

So coming here to twist the scripture and scientific facts just to make it look like Jesus never took alcohol makes you look dishonest. This is one thing I find very irritating in many who profess to be christians

epainos:

Thanks for this verse. Actually, I read this part many times while I was trying to figure it out many years ago before I understood why it cannot still mean that Jesus drank alcohol. As I said earlier, no one can prove that he did or he didn't. Let us look at the verse.

The Greek word used in that portion is: μεθυσθῶσιν (methysthōsin) as you mentioned above. It means "get drunk". You are right. However, Bro! Remember that it was the chief guest who spoke about this. He said...ha ba! Why is the best wine coming out now? The fact is this: people drink both non-alcoholic and alcoholic drinks together at parties even in Jesus' time.

You are stylishly evading the truth bro! No one is discussing non-alcoholic wines here but alcoholic wine! And as i said the reference alone suffices to buttress my opinion that Jews love wine and also get drunk at events and even at home!

and said to him, “Every man serves the good wine first, and when the guests are drunk, then he serves the poorer wine; but you have kept the good wine until now.” John 2:10 The word translated is methysthōsin which means drunk! So the Jews do get drunk!

Reference: https://biblehub.com/john/2-10.htm

And when the guests get drunk...does not come from a non-alcoholic brew!
More so, no one is talking about 100% alcohol here.

The wine tasted was alcoholic and evidently they do get drunk at parties as such!

I lived very well in Europe and I have lived in Russia. You cannot drink vodka without having non-alcohol present. And let me tell you something...vodka tastes almost the same there because the producers must get the particular taste Russians want otherwise, they won't buy it. Even in Nigeria...ogogoro has a particular taste that those who drink it will tell you that..." this is it". But Naija is not a standardised place. So, inferior ones can still sell. Since vodka has a unique taste, the enjoyment derived comes from the (alkaline) non-alcohol you combine with it. Russians don't even mix it. They drink vodka directly and then drink something soft to cool down the effect of its extremely low pH. So, they rarely care about the quality of vodka, but you see big boys asking for fresh juice with no artificial sweeteners. While some just put on table-packed carbonated juice with glucose syrup. Some will tell you that only organic fresh apple is what they want. While varieties of fresh or packed juices are on the table also.

In that party, there is no proof that ONLY alcoholic drinks were served. Of course, Jews always have both too during parties.

The chief guest could have meant that haba! Why bring out the best fresh grape when everyone is already drunk and they cannot drink it again? Or why bring out the best-fermented grape when people are already drunk on a low-quality fermented one?

The only way to know the kind of drink Jesus produced was to know the exact one he produced. Not from indirect comments. And Bible uses a word that means both non-alcoholic and alcoholic. So, we don't know.

You can only guess and explain based on assumptions like yours. But still, it doesn't prove whether the one Jesus produced is alcoholic or not.

As long as "oinon" is the word used for wine in that same verse which means both alcoholic and non-alcoholic, no one can prove it. Period. That word.....wine...is the ONLY way to prove it. And we don't know.

Using the word of the chief guest is not the solution. That word for wine is the ONLY way to prove it.

Please tell me about a party where you have ONLY alcoholic drinks. If you can, then, you can win this argument. But let me tell you...you can still have only non-alcoholic drinks at parties...but never only alcohol.

All these are way too off-points bro!

The comment from the chief guest suggests strongly that the wine he tasted was alcoholic and people can get drunk from it.
It's simple English!

And you keep understating the meaning of drunk in that verse!

Here's is another one!

The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.’ But wisdom is proved right by her deeds.” Matthew 11:19

What makes people become drunkard again?
Fruit Juice!

Drunkard above = oinopotēs
Wine = oinon

What is actual is that people do get tired of juice than they do when it contains alcohol!

AntiChristian:


You are stylishly evading the truth bro! No one is discussing non-alcoholic wines here but alcoholic wine! And as i said the reference alone suffices to buttress my opinion that Jews love wine and also get drunk at events and even at home!

How am I evading the truth? I like how this conversation was going so far because you seemed to want to tackle the subject of discussion like me, and not get emotional, but looks like you also want to force your view here. Now look at the bolded part. This is where you may be wrong. You want to prove that the verse is about ONLY alcohol so you pick only the Greek word for getting drunk. But what about the wine itself? Were they drunk on water? Of course not. If they were drunk, then obviously on wine. But the word wine in this particular verse is oinon. Please return to that Greek Bible you used the first time and check the word wine there. The word used is for both fermented and non-fermented grapes. So, why do you want to away from the possibility that it can be fresh when the word there says it can be?

And when the guests get drunk...does not come from a non-alcoholic brew!
More so, no one is talking about 100% alcohol here.

Oga! Vodka my previous example is only 30% to 40%. Where did you get the idea of 100% alcohol. Even you have 15%, you will still have zero percent and water on table in most parties.

See, I had to explain how Russian drink vodka cos Naijas mix it in their cup first. Lol. Stop using your environment to analyse this issue. You will have picture the olden Jewish culture in your mind to grab this thing. This is why I said that I may have to stop discussing this issue with you cos it seems you are not capable of drawing abstract related things.

You don't have only alcoholic drinks on the table. This is my point. You get drunk drinking alcohol, but it is not only alcohol people who get drunk drink in most cases. There are always fresh drinks available on the table also. And they are both called wines. The point is that if both are available, how can you prove that Jesus' product is alcoholic? Not possible.

Step back and look at it from my view, and you will get my point. If you still dont, then, you cannot get it.

The wine tasted was alcoholic and evidently they do get drunk at parties as such!

Were you there to confirm it?

All these are way too off-points bro!

If you don't get it, then, I may be wrong to assume you can think deeply. Cos Once I keep repeating myself, I leave the person to feel he is right. What we have written here is for the public, and whoever is a deep thinker will get the point I am making. If you don't get it, sorry, I cannot make you get it, and I won't waste my time again with you.

The comment from the chief guest suggests strongly that the wine he tasted was alcoholic and people can get drunk from it.
It's simple English!

So, does the comment from the chief guests suggest they got drunk from the previous wine that was served or Jesus' product that was served very late after they were already drunk? Ok.

Reason it again. You are saying that since they got drunk from the previous drink, then, Jesus' product must be alcoholic. Does that make sense? Did the chief guest say they got drunk from Jesus' product?

If you still don't get it, I will not engage with you again.

And you keep understating the meaning of drunk in that verse!

You are the one overstating it. The chief guest said they got drunk from the wine that was finished. Period. You don't need to twist the Bible. He did not say they got drunk from Jesus' product. So, it is impossible to say that Jesus' product is alcoholic since they didn't get drunk from it.

And this is why I said no one can prove whether Jesus' product is alcoholic or not.

Here's is another one!

The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.’ But wisdom is proved right by her deeds.” Matthew 11:19

What makes people become drunkard again?
Fruit Juice!

Drunkard above = oinopotēs
Wine = oinon

What is actual is that people do get tired of juice than they do when it contains alcohol!

I have many angles to prove you wrong here, but the one I will use is simple.

Do you call ONLY drinkers drunkards?

Guy! Learn to stop making assumptions. Was there food or drink on the table when Jesus made the statement?

Talkatives are called drunkards too. And Jesus used to talk.

Who is a glutton? One who overeats Did the personality of Jesus in the Bible portray a glutton? If he didn't portray that, then, why are you picking only the drinking part? The statement was made by Jesus and the meaning was that Jesus was a "happening" guy on earth. He was always with them. Could there be alcohol on the table most time? Maybe. But did he ever drink? No one knows. The Bible did not say so.

You are only making assumptions again. Oh. Cos Jesus said they called him a glutton and a drunkard, then, he must have taken fermented wine too. Nope. You cannot prove it like this also. Stop making assumptions.

If Jesus was a drunkard in that verse, it means he was a glutton too. But does his personality say he was a glutton?

The word wine used in all these verses is "oinon" which means fresh or fermented. Therefore, you cannot prove it.


I am done with you cos I cannot keep going forth and back. If you want to keep making assumptions to foece your opinion... good luck. But the fact remains that as long as "oinon" is used in all the verses, you cannot prove Jesus took alcohol or did not

Good luck bro!

damosky12:
https://www.nairaland.com/4397144/daddy-freeze-reacts-shina-peller


The link above leads to the thread that surfaced on the front page earlier today in which the controversial OAP, Freeze, was quoted to have made a rather unfounded assertion that Jesus drank alcohol. He was quoted thus:


When Jesus was alive he drank alcohol and was accused to be in the presence of sinners (possibly in Night Clubs) so enjoying a bottle of Champagne or Henny with coke and ice at quilox in responsibility and moderation is actually Christ like.
-
◄ Matthew 11:19 ►
NIV
The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.' ----- What could he have been drinking that they labeled him a drunkard? Lucozade boost?
-
More so, another reason to patronize them lies in the fact that the club employs people who earn a living through it and it pays taxes as instructed by our first pastors, the disciples; something most pastors and churches are blatantly disobeying.


He seemed to have made this statement to advertise for the patronage of a nightclub and to call for a neglect of the church under the guise of contributing to the society.

He spoke of the nightclub to be responsible for employing people without pausing to consider that churches and institutions founded by churches (libraries, schools, housing estates,ets) provide far more employment than any nightclub.

The debate of who or who doesn't provide more employment is not the crux of this response, but to correct the rather heretic view that Jesus took alcohol.

Freeze quoted from Matthew 11:19 NIV

"The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners."

and followed it up with a lame and uncritical commentary

"that could he have been drinking that they labeled him a drunkard? Lucozade boost?"


With a statement like this, he uncritically assumes the position that the accusers were right to have called Jesus a drunkard.
If this assumption is to be taken as true, that will mean they were right as well with other positions that they made in that portion of scripture. Let's check it contextually.


Matthew 11:18-19
[18]For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil.
[19]The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.

Jesus made the statement that he was eating and drinking in opposition to what John was known to do, fasting. Eating and drinking there was not to, by any means, refer to alcohol.


Jesus was clearly not presenting the people as truth speakers but rather haters of the truth. Hence, since they could FALSELY accuse John whom Jesus himself praised as the greatest of prophets (in verses 12-14 of the same chapter) of having a devil, their allegation against Jesus as a drunkard could NEVER have been true.

In other words, if Jesus took alcohol (as Freeze's logic leads him), then John the Baptist, the fore runner of Jesus had a devil, since the allegations came from the same source.

The tone of Jesus quote in itself is that of despair rather than passive. Why would Jesus have to say they called Him a drunkard if He really was? Its simple logic.


Where did the allegation against Jesus come from?

Matthew 9:10-13
[10]And it came to pass, as Jesus sat at meat (eating) in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came and sat down with him and his disciples.
[11]And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners?
[12]But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick.
[13]But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.


As revealed above, Jesus once sat IN HIS HOUSE, eating (not in "Night Clubs" as Freeze suggests) and had the Sinners COME TO HIM. He didn't reject them(as the Pharisees would) but accepted them and shared HIS MEAL with them.

Note the immediate response of the Pharisees: "Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners?". There was no alarm about Jesus being a drunkard. Of course, if they had seen Jesus drinking alcohol, they would have been quick to point that out.
But all they saw there is Jesus sharing His meal with them. Not drinking alcohol.

So, when Jesus said: "The Son of man came eating and drinking", any literate person can see that he wasn't, by the use of 'drinking', referring to alcohol. He was referring to eating and drinking as that which you do when you take your usual meal.


Besides, what did Jesus' Apostles teach about alcohol?

1 Corinthians 5:11
[11]But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard , or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10
[9] Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
[10]Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Galatians 5:21
[21]Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.


Romans 13:13-14
[13] Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying.
[14]But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof.


Why would such "red light signals" be given to Christians as regarding alcohol if Jesus was himself a drunkard?


Be watchful of Freeze's leaven if you are a lover of Christ.

1 Peter 5:8
[8]Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:

Drinking alcohol is not explicitly a sin. It is drunkenness that the Bible condemns just as you quoted.

There are however manners and ways you drink it that can cause someone to stumble.

Ken4Christ:


Drinking alcohol is not explicitly a sin. It is drunkenness that the Bible condemns just as you quoted.

There are however manners and ways you drink it that can cause someone to stumble.

Fair observation. And you're right. But drunkenness starts with drinking. And there's no measure for what measure makes drunken or what doesn't.

Hence, caution is to choose to never be given to it. We must choose to take the truth even if it's against our appetite or craving.

damosky12:


Fair observation. And you're right. But drunkenness starts with drinking. And there's no measure for what measure makes drunken or what doesn't.

Hence, caution is to choose to never be given to it. We must choose to take the truth even if it's against our appetite or craving.

It still doesn't make it a sin. Even excess eating is sin. Does it mean you will not eat because you are afraid of eating excess?

damosky12:

Fair observation. And you're right. But drunkenness starts with drinking. And there's no measure for what measure makes drunken or what doesn't. Hence, caution is to choose to never be given to it. We must choose to take the truth even if it's against our appetite or craving.

Fornication and adultery starts with engaging a female stranger in discussion {John 4:7} so never talk to female strangers!

MaxInDHouse:


Fornication and adultery starts with engaging a female stranger in discussion {John 4:7} so never talk to female strangers!

Fallacy of false equivalence (read up on it).

I think its high time govt made logic compulsory in all secondary schools.

Ken4Christ:


It still doesn't make it a sin. Even excess eating is sin. Does it mean you will not eat because you are afraid of eating excess?

The Bible is precise about drunkenness. Not "excess eating." Read the original post again.

You'd often find the expression "not given to wine" as an ideal Christian conduct. 1 Timothy 3:3.

Pay attention.
Here's the simple point: drunkenness starts with taking alcohol. Is taking alcohol important to your existence?
Must you take alcohol to live your regular life?
Will you be okay if you stay off alcohol?
Do you stand a beter chance to avoid falling into the sin of drunkenness by avoiding alcohol altogether?

Answer all these in your mind. It's precise! It all boils down on level of personal devotion to God.

damosky12:


The Bible is precise about drunkenness. Not "excess eating." Read the original post again.

You'd often find the expression "not given to wine" as an ideal Christian conduct. 1 Timothy 3:3.

Pay attention.
Here's the simple point: drunkenness starts with taking alcohol. Is taking alcohol important to your existence?
Must you take alcohol to live your regular life?
Will you be okay if you stay off alcohol?
Do you stand a beter chance to avoid falling into the sin of drunkenness by avoiding alcohol altogether?

Answer all these in your mind. It's precise! It all boils down on level of personal devotion to God.

We are saying the same thing. Yes drunkenness starts with a little drink. It's up to you to have self control. But you can't say someone has committed a sin because he drank alcohol. So, there is no where in the scripture where it says, don't drink alcoholic wine.

I don't drink it by habit. But I don't condemn someone who drinks it. Neither did the Bible condemns those who drink it. The issue is just a mindset thing. We have been taught by our church fathers that it's a sin to drink alcoholic drink but we never cared to search if it's so in the scripture.

damosky12:

Fallacy of false equivalence (read up on it).
I think its high time govt made logic compulsory in all secondary schools.

Guy Jesus striked a conversation with the lady who thought the young Jew was interested in her until Jesus changed the subject.
So if your own opinion is for people to stop drinking for them not to get drunk then avoid talking to a female to whom you're not married because that's where fornication and adultery starts from in fact Muslims won't allow you to talk to their wives as they believe that drinking will lead to drunkenness.

Ken4Christ:


We are saying the same thing. Yes drunkenness starts with a little drink. It's up to you to have self control. But you can't say someone has committed a sin because he drank alcohol. So, there is no where in the scripture where it says, don't drink alcoholic wine.

I don't drink it by habit. But I don't condemn someone who drinks it. Neither did the Bible condemns those who drink it. The issue is just a mindset thing. We have been taught by our church fathers that it's a sin to drink alcoholic drink but we never cared to search if it's so in the scripture.

Church fathers teaching you to stay off alcohol is not bad. Isn't it better to stay away if you can't tell how or when drunkenness may befall you?

Except you have a wild appetite, I don't get why anyone would be obsessed about searching out the Bible just to find justification for taking alcohol!

Here's the simple point: drunkenness starts with taking alcohol.
Is taking alcohol important to your existence?

Must you take alcohol to live your regular life?

Will you be okay if you stay off alcohol?

Do you stand a beter chance to avoid falling into the sin of drunkenness by avoiding alcohol altogether?

Answer all these in your mind. It's precise! It all boils down on level of personal devotion to God.

Leave story.

damosky12:


Church fathers teaching you to stay off alcohol is not bad. Isn't it better to stay away if you can't tell how or when drunkenness may befall you?

Except you have a wild appetite, I don't get why anyone would be obsessed about searching out the Bible just to find justification for taking alcohol!

Here's the simple point: drunkenness starts with taking alcohol.
Is taking alcohol important to your existence?

Must you take alcohol to live your regular life?

Will you be okay if you stay off alcohol?

Do you stand a beter chance to avoid falling into the sin of drunkenness by avoiding alcohol altogether?

Answer all these in your mind. It's precise! It all boils down on level of personal devotion to God.

Leave story.

It's a good counsel to tell people to avoid drinking alcohol. I agree with you. But don't condemn anyone who drinks it and didn't get drunk. This is my point. Our church fathers are not the standard for Christian living. It's the Bible.