Jesus validated alcoholism?

julio
atheist
Posts: 290
Joined: 2008-12-27
User is offlineOffline
Jesus validated alcoholism?

Jesus validated alcoholism? Yes! 1. Jesus made MORE wine [an extra 600 liters] at a wedding [he drank MORE alongside with his mother and the disciples, who when drunk [probably] exclaimed, “This is the Christ!” (John 2:11)]; 2. He drank alcoholic liquids regularly with sinners and prostitutes, Matthew 11:19; 3. He taught that the poor and poverty would always be among the Jews [a strong element of alcoholism in Israel], John 12:8, Luke 7:22, Romans 15:26; 4. And the Jewish scriptures endorsed substance abuse to soften the horrors of life [Proverbs 31:6-7].

PS: (I am against alcoholism)

No gods with indirect messages to me.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2478
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
 Luke 7:34 seems to support

 Luke 7:34 seems to support your position that Jesus was a boozer.

 

Luke 7:34 (King James Version)

 

 34The Son of man is come eating and drinking; and ye say, Behold a gluttonous man, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners!

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


julio
atheist
Posts: 290
Joined: 2008-12-27
User is offlineOffline
It is ascertained that to

It is ascertained that to get drunk in Palestine at the time of this christ was a route many people took to fight against the terrible living conditions under Jehovah God!

Also, nobody had to be caught drinking & driving on the dusty roads leading to Jerusalem; so, the folk drank and invited Jesus to join, what was wrong with that?!…

It is calculated that half of the high-alcohol content drinks on sale at that time was used to help people die happy, according to Proverbs 31:7!!!

No gods with indirect messages to me.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

What is thought to be known is that he was a partier, and liked to have a good time during his year of travels before being killed for attempting to make Rome's governing illigitimate. (treason) Also keep in mind he only supposedly visited rural areas, where there were few people and few things to do.

 

 

Yes, he drank a lot. Messiahs performing miracles were commonplace as well then.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Stinky Pete (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
God, Jesus, and Booze

 It's fair to note that the passage from Psalms has other words too... the point of the passage is for those in power to defend the oppressed, and that drinking wine/beer (possibly to excess) may impede that mission.

Proverbs 31:2-8 (Today's New International Version)

2 Listen, my son! Listen, son of my womb! 
       Listen, my son, the answer to my prayers!    3 Do not spend your strength a</a>]" style="font-size: 0.75em; line-height: 0.5em; ">[a] on women, 
       your vigor on those who ruin kings.    4 It is not for kings, Lemuel— 
       it is not for kings to drink wine, not for rulers to crave beer, 5 lest they drink and forget what has been decreed, and deprive all the oppressed of their rights.    6 Let beer be for those who are perishing, wine for those who are in anguish!    7 Let them drink and forget their poverty 
       and remember their misery no more.    8 Speak up for those who cannot speak fo themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. 

 


Rob H (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Alcohol in moderation and

Alcohol in moderation and drunkenness must be distinguished.  Christ taught against the later.  Luke 21:34

 

 


nChrist (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Check the context...

First of all the wine in biblical times was no where near what we have today.  To many times people read the scriptures and try to put them in today's context.  The fermentation process back then did not go on for years like it does today, more like weeks.  This being the case, it was merely a fraction as alcoholic.

 

To pauljohntheskeptic: In Luke 7, what was being pointed out was the hypocritical nature of the people.  John proclaimed the Way as an outcast and was a "demon."  While Christ was amoung the people, "eating and drinking" and he was a "glutton and a drunkard."  This was not meant to be a factual statement about the character of Jesus.


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
nChrist wrote:First of all

nChrist wrote:

First of all the wine in biblical times was no where near what we have today.  To many times people read the scriptures and try to put them in today's context.  The fermentation process back then did not go on for years like it does today, more like weeks.  This being the case, it was merely a fraction as alcoholic.

 

To pauljohntheskeptic: In Luke 7, what was being pointed out was the hypocritical nature of the people.  John proclaimed the Way as an outcast and was a "demon."  While Christ was amoung the people, "eating and drinking" and he was a "glutton and a drunkard."  This was not meant to be a factual statement about the character of Jesus.

Winemaking technique hasn't changed alot over the last 2000 years. Heck romans aged their wines sometimes up to 10 years. I have no clue where you got this ignorant information but seriously wine has always been between 9 to 20 percent alcohol even in ancient rome

 


Professor
Theist
Posts: 21
Joined: 2012-10-31
User is offlineOffline
Wine and Communion

With due respect, "latincanuck" shows how the human ego wants to be its own god. "The human mind is an idol factory," wrote John Calvin. You say that you do not believe, yet there is something about the Christian observance of the Lord's Supper that attracts you. Whether fermented wine is used or not is relatively unimportant. That it signifies the blood of Jesus Christ is very important. That the Bible was written by and for real people does not rule out the possibility that God was the divine Supervisor of the process, even of the words themselves, which are inerrant in their original manuscripts. Noah got drunk, Lot got drunk, Uriah the Hittite got drunk -- they were real people. And these real people interacted with the Living God.


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

nChrist wrote:

First of all the wine in biblical times was no where near what we have today.  To many times people read the scriptures and try to put them in today's context.  The fermentation process back then did not go on for years like it does today, more like weeks.  This being the case, it was merely a fraction as alcoholic.

I must point out you have no idea whatsoever of the wine making process. The wine was just as alcoholic as it is today within a couple of technical limits. The entire fermentation process lasted a few days back then as it still does today.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Professor wrote:
With due respect, "latincanuck" shows how the human ego wants to be its own god. "The human mind is an idol factory," wrote John Calvin. You say that you do not believe, yet there is something about the Christian observance of the Lord's Supper that attracts you. Whether fermented wine is used or not is relatively unimportant. That it signifies the blood of Jesus Christ is very important. That the Bible was written by and for real people does not rule out the possibility that God was the divine Supervisor of the process, even of the words themselves, which are inerrant in their original manuscripts. Noah got drunk, Lot got drunk, Uriah the Hittite got drunk -- they were real people. And these real people interacted with the Living God.

Nor does it rule out the first Pope having been Peter Rabbit but both are without physical evidence so they are equally bullshit.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Professor wrote: With

Professor wrote:
With due respect, "latincanuck" shows how the human ego wants to be its own god. "The human mind is an idol factory," wrote John Calvin. You say that you do not believe, yet there is something about the Christian observance of the Lord's Supper that attracts you. Whether fermented wine is used or not is relatively unimportant. That it signifies the blood of Jesus Christ is very important. That the Bible was written by and for real people does not rule out the possibility that God was the divine Supervisor of the process, even of the words themselves, which are inerrant in their original manuscripts. Noah got drunk, Lot got drunk, Uriah the Hittite got drunk -- they were real people. And these real people interacted with the Living God.

Again you make ignorant statements, my statement was in regards to wine making process of ancient times, my family are wine makers (over 600 years of it) and the technique is pretty much the same as it was back then, only real difference is in what we store it in. However the amount of time for fermenting is pretty much the same from what we have seen in ancient texts regarding wine making in Rome in and around the time that this happened, which happens to be the golden age of roman wine.

As for the rest of it there is nothing that about the last supper that attracts me at all, it's a story from the bible that's it. It can signify the blood of christ, yet still does not mean jesus existed, nor lot, moses, noah or abraham. So yeah I have no clue where you got the rest from my statement that you are wrong about the alcohol content and the whole last supper thing I don't know you are trying really hard to make a connection that isn't there.


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3192
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Professor wrote: With due

Professor wrote:
With due respect, "latincanuck" shows how the human ego wants to be its own god. "The human mind is an idol factory," wrote John Calvin. You say that you do not believe, yet there is something about the Christian observance of the Lord's Supper that attracts you. Whether fermented wine is used or not is relatively unimportant. That it signifies the blood of Jesus Christ is very important. That the Bible was written by and for real people does not rule out the possibility that God was the divine Supervisor of the process, even of the words themselves, which are inerrant in their original manuscripts. Noah got drunk, Lot got drunk, Uriah the Hittite got drunk -- they were real people. And these real people interacted with the Living God.

These assertions about ego, and the clarification that Noah, Lot and Uriah got drunk is supposed to prove what exactly ?  IOW. Where are you going with this ?

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


julio
atheist
Posts: 290
Joined: 2008-12-27
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote: nChrist

latincanuck wrote:

nChrist wrote:

First of all the wine in biblical times was no where near what we have today.  To many times people read the scriptures and try to put them in today's context.  The fermentation process back then did not go on for years like it does today, more like weeks.  This being the case, it was merely a fraction as alcoholic.

 

To pauljohntheskeptic: In Luke 7, what was being pointed out was the hypocritical nature of the people.  John proclaimed the Way as an outcast and was a "demon."  While Christ was amoung the people, "eating and drinking" and he was a "glutton and a drunkard."  This was not meant to be a factual statement about the character of Jesus.

Winemaking technique hasn't changed alot over the last 2000 years. Heck romans aged their wines sometimes up to 10 years. I have no clue where you got this ignorant information but seriously wine has always been between 9 to 20 percent alcohol even in ancient rome

 

Well put. Proverbs 31:6 speaks of STRONG drink. How strong was it?! Very strong, to inebriate the victim beyond suffering!

No gods with indirect messages to me.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4172
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
julio wrote:latincanuck

julio wrote:

latincanuck wrote:

nChrist wrote:

First of all the wine in biblical times was no where near what we have today.  To many times people read the scriptures and try to put them in today's context.  The fermentation process back then did not go on for years like it does today, more like weeks.  This being the case, it was merely a fraction as alcoholic.

 

To pauljohntheskeptic: In Luke 7, what was being pointed out was the hypocritical nature of the people.  John proclaimed the Way as an outcast and was a "demon."  While Christ was amoung the people, "eating and drinking" and he was a "glutton and a drunkard."  This was not meant to be a factual statement about the character of Jesus.

Winemaking technique hasn't changed alot over the last 2000 years. Heck romans aged their wines sometimes up to 10 years. I have no clue where you got this ignorant information but seriously wine has always been between 9 to 20 percent alcohol even in ancient rome

 

Well put. Proverbs 31:6 speaks of STRONG drink. How strong was it?! Very strong, to inebriate the victim beyond suffering!

The drinks may have been quite strong as distillation was a technique that was making its way to Europe. It didn't become popular in the Roman Empire until about 100 AD but there is evidence it was used throughout the Arab world for thousands of years. When you distill wine you can get over 70% alcohol by volume which is then aged to mellow it out. Alcohol evaporates more quickly than water so the alcohol level slowly dissipates and after 40-50 years it will stabilize at around 40% ABV. So it is quite possible that what they called "wine" might have been what we call brandy today or perhaps a fortified wine (where you add brandy to a wine that has not been distilled to increase alcohol content). Given that they probably didn't have the patience to age for 50 years back then anything distilled was probably much stronger than what you would pick up in your local liquor store.

The idea that wine somehow had a lower alcohol content back then is absurd. As latincanuck pointed out, they used pretty much the same process and aging does not make wine stronger. Wine has a pretty stable alcohol level after fermentation and if it changes at all it would become lower, although not enough lower to make any noticeable difference.

Also, there is significant evidence that beer back then was much stronger than it is today and adding water to weaken your beer was a common practice. Could you imagine anyone putting water into their Bud Light? 


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
The biggest difference is we

The biggest difference is we can control the temperature when making wine down to specific degrees. However grape juice and grapes, sugar, water is still used we don't use chalk or marble to reduce the acidity but that doesn't change the alcohol content at all. I still want to know where you got the idea that alcohol content was lower?


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2356
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
It was stronger.

 

 

 

                     Wealthy Romans may have aged their wines up to 10 years, mellowing the alcohol as it aged, but not likely the common people of rural Palistine.   Ancient Greeks began their symposiums by first deciding how much to cut the evenings wine supply,  if a long conversation was desired they may cut at 3 parts water to 1 part wine, if a short night was desired the cut might be 1 part water to 4 parts wine; since the symposiums ended when the participents were too drunk to continue [or passed out] .  Weather the guests left that night or slept it off and departed the next day the good host would be at the front gate with one more cup of wine and the blessing "drink this in rememberance of good times, or drink this in rememberence of  me".

 

 

                    I don't recall any passage in the bible that says they cut the wine with water to make it less potent, so those guys must have been sloshing it back straight at 50% to 70% alcohol, then died of liver deseise in  their 40's. 

 

 

 

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Jeffrick

Jeffrick wrote:

 

 

 

                     Wealthy Romans may have aged their wines up to 10 years, mellowing the alcohol as it aged, but not likely the common people of rural Palistine.   Ancient Greeks began their symposiums by first deciding how much to cut the evenings wine supply,  if a long conversation was desired they may cut at 3 parts water to 1 part wine, if a short night was desired the cut might be 1 part water to 4 parts wine; since the symposiums ended when the participents were too drunk to continue [or passed out] .  Weather the guests left that night or slept it off and departed the next day the good host would be at the front gate with one more cup of wine and the blessing "drink this in rememberance of good times, or drink this in rememberence of  me".

 

 

                    I don't recall any passage in the bible that says they cut the wine with water to make it less potent, so those guys must have been sloshing it back straight at 50% to 70% alcohol, then died of liver deseise in  their 40's. 

cutting wine with water was a common practice (and still is today usually club soda) so they probably wouldn't have mentioned it, it would be assumed they did depending if it was going to be a long meal (3 parts water to 1 part wine) or a short one (1 part water to 3 parts wine) this would be the common practice at the time.