|
Post by fixit on Nov 27, 2015 15:42:26 GMT -5
come on it doesn't take much logic to understand you weren't having even a little bit at the bottom of the cup I think I might be logical enough to realise that but nevertheless it is against the law to serve alcohol to a minor or for a minor to consume it. At convention the cup is full and lets assume the first person receiving it is a 16 year old who drinks it. Both the worker and individual are breaking the law and if caught would be fined I doubt that communion wine would come within the intent of the law. It would be interesting to see it tested in Court but l expect everyone would have more relevant concerns.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2015 17:39:27 GMT -5
well then if you want to be honest you better hop of down to the police station I'll let you do that... why would i want to do that?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Nov 29, 2015 3:53:52 GMT -5
I doubt that communion wine would come within the intent of the law. It would be interesting to see it tested in Court but l expect everyone would have more relevant concerns. Of course there are more relevant concerns but the attitude that says (a) I won't change even though I'm technically flouting the law and (b) I won't change because there shouldn't be alcoholics among us .... reflects how local Head Workers think. As a result, it's not surprising that this "leadership" approach is applied to other areas of the 2x2 church. The workers can't win on this one. If they suggest wine, they're condemned for breaking the law. If they suggest grape juice, they're condemned for straying from scripture. My understanding is that the custom is to use grape juice in America, and wine elsewhere. As far as I can tell, elders are not told what to use as long as it's "the fruit of the vine".
|
|
|
Post by rational on Nov 29, 2015 10:04:49 GMT -5
The workers can't win on this one. If they suggest wine, they're condemned for breaking the law. If they suggest grape juice, they're condemned for straying from scripture. My understanding is that the custom is to use grape juice in America, and wine elsewhere. As far as I can tell, elders are not told what to use as long as it's "the fruit of the vine". And that opens the door for cucumber or tomato juice...
|
|
|
Post by xna on Nov 29, 2015 12:34:52 GMT -5
The workers can't win on this one. If they suggest wine, they're condemned for breaking the law. If they suggest grape juice, they're condemned for straying from scripture. My understanding is that the custom is to use grape juice in America, and wine elsewhere. As far as I can tell, elders are not told what to use as long as it's "the fruit of the vine". And that opens the door for cucumber or tomato juice... We were told by workers that any fruit of the vine would do. I have been in meetings where all were poor, so they kept a box of meeting raisins. When money was low, or it was too far to go for grape juice, they would soak a few raisins in water overnight, and use the juice in the morning. On those meetings days there was always some extra fruit of the vine juice left over.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Nov 29, 2015 13:20:32 GMT -5
The workers can't win on this one. If they suggest wine, they're condemned for breaking the law. If they suggest grape juice, they're condemned for straying from scripture. My understanding is that the custom is to use grape juice in America, and wine elsewhere. As far as I can tell, elders are not told what to use as long as it's "the fruit of the vine". And that opens the door for cucumber or tomato juice... Sorry, I didn't make my post Rat-proof. Let's try again... As far as I can tell, workers don't specifically instruct each elder on what to use for the Sunday AM meeting emblems. However I have heard workers teach in meetings that "the fruit of the vine" must be used because that's what Jesus referred to. It's pretty obvious to bible readers that Jesus was not referring to the fruit of the cucumber or tomato vine.
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Nov 29, 2015 16:51:36 GMT -5
Sorry, I didn't make my post Rat-proof. Ha!
|
|
|
Post by rational on Nov 30, 2015 0:35:03 GMT -5
It's pretty obvious to bible readers that Jesus was not referring to the fruit of the cucumber or tomato vine. If the verses above are what you are using to support your premise you have failed. There is no specific fruit mentioned. Both tomatoes and cucumbers are fruit and they both grow on vines.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Nov 30, 2015 1:23:07 GMT -5
It's pretty obvious to bible readers that Jesus was not referring to the fruit of the cucumber or tomato vine. If the verses above are what you are using to support your premise you have failed. There is no specific fruit mentioned. Both tomatoes and cucumbers are fruit and they both grow on vines. Do you think Jesus and his disciples drank tomato juice or cucumber juice or the fruit of the grape vine at the "Last Supper"?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Nov 30, 2015 10:19:55 GMT -5
If the verses above are what you are using to support your premise you have failed. There is no specific fruit mentioned. Both tomatoes and cucumbers are fruit and they both grow on vines. Do you think Jesus and his disciples drank tomato juice or cucumber juice or the fruit of the grape vine at the "Last Supper"? What I think, or what anyone thinks, is not the issue. The data available does not specify what fruit was taken off which vine and turned into a drink. It is doubtful it was a tomato since tomatoes were not available in the area. However, various melons might be a possibility. I doubt that it was kiwis but it seems that passion fruit might have been appropriate! Of course, common sense would lead one to believe that grapes were the fruit of the vine but then common sense would also lead one to believe that if you mix a cup of water with a cup of ethanol (made from the fruit of the vine) or methanol you would end up with two cups of the mixture. In the first case there is little data to support what the fruit was but in the second case you would experience a 4% loss of volume - sort of a PChem tax!
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Nov 30, 2015 13:38:20 GMT -5
The workers can't win on this one. If they suggest wine, they're condemned for breaking the law. If they suggest grape juice, they're condemned for straying from scripture. My understanding is that the custom is to use grape juice in America, and wine elsewhere. As far as I can tell, elders are not told what to use as long as it's "the fruit of the vine". And that opens the door for cucumber or tomato juice... Impossible, Jesus was born, raised and died in what is now Palestine or should be. The tomato and cucumber did not grow anywhere near that area so he would not have had a clue that they even existed. So he could not refer to a plant that he has no knowledge of.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Nov 30, 2015 15:22:00 GMT -5
And that opens the door for cucumber or tomato juice... Impossible, Jesus was born, raised and died in what is now Palestine or should be. The tomato and cucumber did not grow anywhere near that area so he would not have had a clue that they even existed. So he could not refer to a plant that he has no knowledge of. I hate to break it to you but cucumbers were common. I guess it would be safe to assume that you missed the NUMBERS 11:5 bible study night. Since there were melons maybe the drink was Midori melon liqueur! As to what Jesus did and did not know really depends on your view of Jesus. As a divine being it could be assumed he was omnipotent. Of course, there are several verses that would deny this attribute but I am sure they could be applied with a little effort. I think you are missing the point. We all assume that the fruit of the vine that was mentioned was grapes but it is not stated.
|
|
|
Post by blandie on Nov 30, 2015 15:47:24 GMT -5
Jesus refused wine - not 'fruit of a vine' - at the crucifixion so I think its safe to say he was talking about wine and not fermented melon - yuk - and anyway the verses where he used fruit of a vine isn't a commandment or saying directly about the cup the apostles just drank but only that he wouldn't have any of that fruit until the kingdom of god should come. Would have been alcoholic whatever fruit it was because no preservation back then except salting which wouldn't be used for a drink.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Nov 30, 2015 17:22:20 GMT -5
We all assume that the fruit of the vine that was mentioned was grapes but it is not stated. To get a better idea of what Jesus meant by "fruit of the vine" it would be helpful to take a look at the 185 mentions of "vine" in the bible. Was anything other than a grape vine alluded to?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Nov 30, 2015 18:29:46 GMT -5
Jesus refused wine - not 'fruit of a vine' - at the crucifixion so I think its safe to say he was talking about wine and not fermented melon - yuk - and anyway the verses where he used fruit of a vine isn't a commandment or saying directly about the cup the apostles just drank but only that he wouldn't have any of that fruit until the kingdom of god should come. Would have been alcoholic whatever fruit it was because no preservation back then except salting which wouldn't be used for a drink. It really depends on the translation and who was doing the writing. In Matthew it states (KJV): They gave him vinegar to drink mingled with gall: and when he had tasted thereof, he would not drink.In John the second time there was liquid offered: Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a spunge with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop, and put it to his mouth. When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.Perhaps elderberry wine? Dandelion wine?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Nov 30, 2015 18:48:35 GMT -5
We all assume that the fruit of the vine that was mentioned was grapes but it is not stated. To get a better idea of what Jesus meant by "fruit of the vine" it would be helpful to take a look at the 185 mentions of "vine" in the bible. Was anything other than a grape vine alluded to? Sometimes. And one went out into the field to gather herbs, and found a wild vine, and gathered thereof wild gourds his lap full, and came and shred them into the pot of pottage: for they knew them not.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Nov 30, 2015 19:36:04 GMT -5
To get a better idea of what Jesus meant by "fruit of the vine" it would be helpful to take a look at the 185 mentions of "vine" in the bible. Was anything other than a grape vine alluded to? Sometimes. And one went out into the field to gather herbs, and found a wild vine, and gathered thereof wild gourds his lap full, and came and shred them into the pot of pottage: for they knew them not.I can't imagine anyone wanting to use gourd juice as a substitute for communion wine.
|
|
hberry
Senior Member
Posts: 743
|
Post by hberry on Nov 30, 2015 19:40:49 GMT -5
Sometimes. And one went out into the field to gather herbs, and found a wild vine, and gathered thereof wild gourds his lap full, and came and shred them into the pot of pottage: for they knew them not.I can't imagine anyone wanting to use gourd juice as a substitute for communion wine. I'm with you on that one. And furthermore, I can't imagine anyone even thinking of gourd juice, much less drinking it. I haven't tried it, but it sounds about as yummy as grasshopper tacos. (Yeah, saw that on PBS the other night...something else I wouldn't have thought of trying--or frying.)
|
|
|
Post by jondough on Nov 30, 2015 20:14:45 GMT -5
I can't imagine anyone wanting to use gourd juice as a substitute for communion wine. I'm with you on that one. And furthermore, I can't imagine anyone even thinking of gourd juice, much less drinking it. I haven't tried it, but it sounds about as yummy as grasshopper tacos. (Yeah, saw that on PBS the other night...something else I wouldn't have thought of trying--or frying.) lol. Hi Hberry. Drop in once in a while!
|
|
|
Post by rational on Nov 30, 2015 20:47:09 GMT -5
I can't imagine anyone wanting to use gourd juice as a substitute for communion wine. I know what you mean. There are so many things that I cannot imagine about religious beliefs! When a diabetic needs communion this might be the solution/cure.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Nov 30, 2015 20:57:23 GMT -5
I can't imagine anyone wanting to use gourd juice as a substitute for communion wine. I'm with you on that one. And furthermore, I can't imagine anyone even thinking of gourd juice, much less drinking it. I haven't tried it, but it sounds about as yummy as grasshopper tacos. (Yeah, saw that on PBS the other night...something else I wouldn't have thought of trying--or frying.) Bitter Gourd Juice 960mL an Amazon top seller YUM YUM
|
|
|
Post by emy on Nov 30, 2015 21:40:59 GMT -5
Just an "FYI"!
Numbers 11:5 We remember the fish, which we did eat in Egypt freely; the cucumbers, and the melons, and the leeks, and the onions, and the garlick:
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Nov 30, 2015 21:49:23 GMT -5
Just an "FYI"! Numbers 11:5 We remember the fish, which we did eat in Egypt freely; the cucumbers, and the melons, and the leeks, and the onions, and the garlick:So you're think Jesus was referring to the fruit of the cucumber vine?
|
|
|
Post by emy on Nov 30, 2015 22:09:44 GMT -5
Just an "FYI"! Numbers 11:5 We remember the fish, which we did eat in Egypt freely; the cucumbers, and the melons, and the leeks, and the onions, and the garlick:So you're think Jesus was referring to the fruit of the cucumber vine? Nope. Just saying that cucumbers and melons might have been available, since they were known in Egypt. Not many drinks make use of cucumber or melon juices, even now.
|
|
|
Post by blandie on Nov 30, 2015 23:17:31 GMT -5
It really depends on the translation and who was doing the writing. In Matthew it states (KJV): They gave him vinegar to drink mingled with gall: and when he had tasted thereof, he would not drink.In John the second time there was liquid offered: Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a spunge with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop, and put it to his mouth. When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.Perhaps elderberry wine? Dandelion wine? Elder and dandelions aren't vines and require added sugar to achieve enough alcohol to preserve for more than a few weeks. On the other hand vinegar can come from all sorts of fermentated fruits or vegetables or grain and doesn't have to be from grapes which is why the distinction 'vinegar of wine' is made in places. Jesus was offered 2 drinks - one just before crucifying and the other just before death and they don't disagree. Matthew and mark mention the first as being a concoction of wine/vinegar mixed with myrrh/gall and gall is anything with a bitter taste and not inconsistent with myrrh and whatever else that might have been mixed in. Jesus refused this drink. Matthew and luke and john all mention the second drink offered just before death as vinegar without saying what type of vinegar and none say it was mixed with anything else. Sometimes. And one went out into the field to gather herbs, and found a wild vine, and gathered thereof wild gourds his lap full, and came and shred them into the pot of pottage: for they knew them not.But aren't those the gourds that poisoned the prophets and people that Elisha had to fix?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 1, 2015 1:59:10 GMT -5
Elder and dandelions aren't vines and require added sugar to achieve enough alcohol to preserve for more than a few weeks. No, they are not fruits of the vine but they can be used to make wine. I wonder why you feel elderberry fruit does not contain enough sugar to make wine and why you think it is only the sugar content that is converted to alcohol. Unless I am mistaken elderberries can actually provide more carbohydrates than grapes. And on yet another hand it is difficult to get from juice/mash to vinegar without the production of alcohol.And are you willing to say that all translations agree with what you have claimed? Did any of the writers claim there was a concoction of wine/vinegar? Matthew 27:34 New American Standard Biblethey gave Him wine to drink mixed with gall; and after tasting it, He was unwilling to drink.King James BibleThey gave him vinegar to drink mingled with gall: and when he had tasted thereof, he would not drink.Mark 15:23 King James BibleAnd they gave him to drink wine mingled with myrrh: but he received it not.As I said, it depends on the translation and the person telling the story. They are different. You can't just say they are the same when they are clearly not. Close, maybe, but different. The point was that the word vine in the bible was not always associated with grapes. True, the gourds did not work out as food.
|
|
|
Post by blandie on Dec 1, 2015 4:32:59 GMT -5
And are you willing to say that all translations agree with what you have claimed? Did any of the writers claim there was a concoction of wine/vinegar? Matthew 27:34 New American Standard Biblethey gave Him wine to drink mixed with gall; and after tasting it, He was unwilling to drink.King James BibleThey gave him vinegar to drink mingled with gall: and when he had tasted thereof, he would not drink.Mark 15:23 King James BibleAnd they gave him to drink wine mingled with myrrh: but he received it not.As I said, it depends on the translation and the person telling the story. They are different. You can't just say they are the same when they are clearly not. Close, maybe, but different. No not different even if you're determined to make a distinction thats nonexistent. Matthew and mark clearly say there were 2 drinks offered - a first drink offered before the crucifixion in matthew 27:34 and mark 15:23 - and a second drink hours later just before death. Mark clearly says that the first drink - before the crucifixion - was oinos=wine and not just vinegar and the word oinos=wine is also used in the greek in the corresponding passage in matthew in most greek versions - tho the kjv textus receptus uses oxos=vinegar. Luke uses oxos=vinegar/sour/acid to describe the first drink in 23:36. There is not a contradiction or disagreement between either the gospels or the greek texts because wine vinegar can be described as either wine or vinegar or soured wine or wine vinegar or vinegar of wine so long as it came from grapes. I've made my own vinegar and the distinction between wine thats gone off and vinegar isn't clear cut like you're making it out to be. The second drink several hours after the first and after jesus had been nailed to the cross and just before death is described in matthew 27:48 and mark 15:36 and john 19:29-30 and those verses all use oxos=vinegar/sour/acid to describe the second drink. The second drink offered could have been made from anything that could be fermented - beer-based/grain vinegar and vinegar from other fermented fruits and foods was also used then as now.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 1, 2015 11:16:58 GMT -5
And are you willing to say that all translations agree with what you have claimed? Did any of the writers claim there was a concoction of wine/vinegar? Matthew 27:34 New American Standard Biblethey gave Him wine to drink mixed with gall; and after tasting it, He was unwilling to drink.King James BibleThey gave him vinegar to drink mingled with gall: and when he had tasted thereof, he would not drink.Mark 15:23 King James BibleAnd they gave him to drink wine mingled with myrrh: but he received it not.As I said, it depends on the translation and the person telling the story. They are different. You can't just say they are the same when they are clearly not. Close, maybe, but different. No not different even if you're determined to make a distinction thats nonexistent. My statement was that there were different stories depending on the translation and the writer. The KJV translation is different from the New American Standard translation. You can say they are the same but one says wine and one says vinegar. Those are different. One writer says gal and one says myrrh. Those are different. Correct. Matthew and Mark both used the Greek oivov. I trust that you can see that the story you get is very much dependent on the translator. Of course, then Luke spoiled it all and used oxos (vinegar, that is, sour wine). However, Mark used the word smurnizo (to mingle with myrrh) and Matthew used the word chole (bile, gall) so you can see that the story as told by different writers is also different. In this case it is a difference between the Romans showing some sort of mercy and offering myrrh, a mild pain killer, or offering gall, a bitter unidentified compound added to the vinegar. Luke did not mention either additive. (from Strong's Greek Dictionary of the New Testament and Westcott & Hort GNT - Greek to English literal translation.)I prefer the literal translation over the Blue Letter Bible.Whether you consider them the same is not the issue. They are different. Different translations render the original text differently. And different writers claim different things as well. Myrrh is not gal.Actually it is quite clear cut. I think what you are missing is that wine that has gone off is a mixture of not only the acetic acid you were hoping for but also other organics like aldehydes and ketones as well as other byproducts from assorted bacteria. If the wine you started with contained sulfides there are a bunch of other interesting compounds that are formed using the sulfer. The fuzziness is that at one point air/oxygen is your friend and then it is not. You need to keep the Acetobacter happy and the rest of the bacteria in check. This was a drink the Romans used and it appears to have always been wine based.
|
|