Drug Dealing and the Bible

[Nazaroo]

Isaiah 25:6 KJV
And in this mountain shall the LORD of hosts make unto all people a feast of fat things, a feast of wines on the lees, of fat things full of marrow, of wines on the lees well refined.

Numbers 6:20 KJV
And the priest shall wave them for a wave offering before the LORD: this is holy for the priest, with the wave breast and heave shoulder: and after that the Nazarite may drink wine.

Numbers 28:7 KJV
...in the holy place shalt thou cause the strong wine to be poured unto the LORD for a drink offering.

Deuteronomy 14:26 KJV
And you may spend the money for whatever your heart desires, for oxen, or sheep, or wine, or strong drink, or whatever your heart desires; and there you shall eat in the presence of the LORD your God and rejoice, you and your household.

Since you don't even understand that the English is only a (biased, out of date) translation, why continue to discuss it?

Why not actually read the last twenty pages of posts first, and then address the actual issues raised, like vocabulary, usage, Hebrew and Greek background culture, Aramaisms, translation-Greek, the LXX, Thayer's bias, the Unitarian movement and its mutilation of Holy Scripture, Baptists, the problem of alcoholism in the priesthood, organised crime, God's condemnation of those who use recreational alcohol to get drunk or high, the Prohibition, etc. etc. etc.

When you are well enough educated to talk about the issues, I suggest making a test-post, with some pertinent questions. We will try to answer them.

peace
Nazaroo

 

[Paulos]

There's no end to wine industry propaganda. And why should we expect it? Drugs including wine are a multi-billion dollar industry.

There is no "wine industry propaganda" coming from me, only truth. But you seem to consider any truth you disagree with to be propaganda.

You seem to hold "authorities" in high regard. I prefer truth.
(wikipedia? Get serious.)

Since you wish to disparage it, what exactly did the Wikipedia article on lees say that you disagree with? The fact is that the "wine on the lees" referred to in Isaiah 25:6 can only refer to fermented wine. Do you dispute this?

(1) To show just how little you know about the very Holy Scriptures you are quoting, we only need refer to your first quotation:

"These men are full of new wine." (Acts 2:13)​

Not only is this a sloppy idiomatic translation, upheld by boozers, the underlying Greek isn't οινος ("oinos") at all!

Its gleukos (a sweet fruit syrup made from boiling juice), sometimes mixed with alcohol in mixed drinks.

Since you aren't going to admit you meant to deliberately mislead English readers, we'll just have to mark you down as ignorant of original Greek NT.

It is frankly dishonest for you to assert that I am deliberately misleading others. You do not know me and you cannot be certain of what I am mindful of, therefore you have no right to make such assertions.

However, you are correct to say that I am "ignorant of original Greek NT". I have never studied Greek or Hebrew. What I can do, though, is avail myself of the many resources and reference works that are available both online and off. I've done a bit of research on the Greek word "gleukos", which is translated as "new wine" in Acts 2:13, and although there is some disagreement as to its precise meaning, it does appear to me that the weight of the evidence is in favor of your side of the argument--namely, that gleukos does not refer to a fermented product. I am willing to concede this part of the argument; however, there are other passages of scripture which I believe do refer unquestionably to fermented wine, such as Isaiah 25:6, Numbers 28:7, and Deuteronomy 14:26, and if you can prove otherwise I would appreciate it if you would simply do so.

You spend paragraphs quibbling about 10% versus 14% or even 20% (who cares?).

You were the one who first brought up percentages, so apparently you are the one who cares--or at least you did until I put the light of truth up to your claim that "yeast cannot grow in a solution of 6-10% alcohol" and showed it to be wrong.

The point remains the same. Then and now, fermentation naturally stops when the yeast dies in its own excrement. The sediment in your wine is yeast poop. Enjoy.

This is just you showing your ignorance and/or immaturity. Yeasts are microscopic mushroom-like organisms. They do not have intestines or anuses. You try to make it sound as though they squeeze little brown feces out of their rear ends. They do not. What they do is metabolize sugars, and in the process they release three things, and only three things: 1) carbon dioxide, 2) ethanol, and 3) water. That's it! Besides which, sediment can be removed from wine by raking and filtration.

Oh, and by the way, the same fermentation process that takes place in wine also takes place in leavened bread. Enjoy!

(3) You found a link that says alcohol may (or may not) kill bacteria. Wow. Who knew? They've only been using alcohol to swab wounds for a hundred years.

Here's something they didn't know, and apparently you don't know it either even though you had a chance to read the article:

"The researchers note that wine and beer are rich in compounds with antibacterial activity. Thus the H. pylori protection linked to wine and beer may have nothing to do with their alcohol content."​

But this doesn't mean that fermentation isn't necessary in order to obtain wine's health benefits:

The optimal strength of alcohol to water mixtures against E.coli and staphylococci is seventy per cent by weight. Yet most experiments with wine as an antiseptic have proven successful. Recent studies from Bordeaux have pinned down the mechanism to the anthocyanes, a sub-group in the large group of polyphenols present in wine.

The most important member of this group of compounds, as regards antibacterial effects, is also the principal pigment of red wine, malvoside. There is a colourless equivalent for white wines. This pigment is already present in the grapes but combined with a carbohydrate and thus not antiseptic. During alcoholic fermentation it splits free and becomes activated.​

(Source: http://mlsv.org.au/files/1980-1984/7th April 1984, Wine as Medicine By Dr. Peter Burke.pdf )

There are numerous healthful properties in wine such as polyphenols, resveratrol, essential minerals, etc. The healthful effects of many of these properties are actually enhanced by the fermentation process.

You still haven't addressed any of my points about Paul's private instructions to Timothy, the main one being it isn't a guideline for recreational drinking, but a medical prescription, which you have admitted by posting this link on medical tripe.

That's because I suspect that it is as you suggested: that Paul advised Timothy to relax his Nazarite vow and use a bit of wine as a form of medicine. It's clear from the context that Paul was trying to give Timothy a bit of medical advice, and I think he gave Timothy some good advice there, don't you?

(4) You ramble on about Nazarites (I am one), but you miss the whole point.

If a man were 'holy' without the Nazarite vow, then it would be superfluous, misleading, and downright wrong.

The Nazarite vow is a vow of holiness, meaning those who drink wine are NOT holy. For instance, even a high priest could not enter the temple unless he was sober (and holy).

Obviously, neither God nor Moses would have wanted a drunk priest to minister in the temple. That's just common sense. In order to ensure this didn't happen, they were forbidden to drink wine well before they went into the Tabernacle. But it wasn't forbidden to them on other occasions. If it was, the text would simply forbid them from ever drinking wine at all, which it simply does not do. That only applies to Nazarites, and even then, the prohibition applied only for the duration of their vow (Numbers 6:20). Only those few who were Nazarites for life were specifically forbidden from drinking wine throughout their entire lifetime.

If thats all you got, maybe you ought to get a bottle of wine ...(Proverbs 31:6)

This is the problem that I have with your line of thinking: You seem to think that this topic can only be viewed in terms of extremes. It doesn't have to be that way. I am a middle-aged man, and I have never been drunk once in my life. At most, I drink one beer or one glass of wine in a given day (perhaps two on extremely rare occasions). From time to time, I will go for days, weeks, or even months without a single drink. I live a life of healthy moderation from both the biblical and medical perspective in that regard, but you seem to think that a person must be either a complete prohibitionist or a falling-down drunk. This is simply irrational thinking on your part.

In my view there is not one but two wise choices to make in relation to wine/beer consumption: one is total abstinence (your choice), and the other is moderation. Between the two, I have chosen moderation, and I have both scripture and science on my side in doing so.

Peace be with you.

 

[Nazaroo]

There is no "wine industry propaganda" coming from me, only truth.

Since you wish to disparage it, what exactly did the Wikipedia article on lees say that you disagree with? The fact is that the "wine on the lees" referred to in Isaiah 25:6 can only refer to fermented wine. Do you dispute this?

Perhaps "wine on the lees" does mean something to this effect in the old Elizabethan English. But this is completely foreign to the text of Isaiah here:

וְעָשָׂה יְהוָה צְבָאֹות לְכָל־הָֽעַמִּים בָּהָר הַזֶּה מִשְׁתֵּה שְׁמָנִים מִשְׁתֵּה שְׁמָרִים שְׁמָנִים מְמֻחָיִם שְׁמָרִים מְזֻקָּקִֽים׃
​

"And Yahweh of Armies will prepare for all of the nations on this mountain a feast of choice foods, a banquet of the best shamarim ("drinks") metayim ("with pulp") , [and] shamarim ("drinks") metzqaqim ("purified")."

The normal word for "wine" is 'yayin', not 'shamar'.

... you are correct to say that I am "ignorant of original Greek NT". I have never studied Greek or Hebrew.

An honest and fair admission, and due our respect.

What I can do, though, is avail myself of the many resources and reference works that are available both online and off.
I've done a bit of research on the Greek word "gleukos", which is translated as "new wine" in Acts 2:13, and although there is some disagreement as to its precise meaning, it does appear to me that the weight of the evidence is in favor of your side of the argument--namely, that gleukos does not refer to a fermented product. I am willing to concede this part of the argument; however, there are other passages of scripture which I believe do refer unquestionably to fermented wine, such as Isaiah 25:6, Numbers 28:7, and Deuteronomy 14:26, and if you can prove otherwise I would appreciate it if you would simply do so.

I'll have a look at your other references.

... Yeasts are microscopic mushroom-like organisms. They do not have intestines or anuses. You try to make it sound as though they squeeze little brown feces out of their rear ends. They do not. What they do is metabolize sugars, and in the process they release three things, and only three things: 1) carbon dioxide, 2) ethanol, and 3) water. That's it! Besides which, sediment can be removed from wine by raking and filtration.

Oh, and by the way, the same fermentation process that takes place in wine also takes place in leavened bread. Enjoy!

I enjoy unleavened bread when its available.

... I suspect that it is as you suggested: that Paul advised Timothy to relax his Nazarite vow and use a bit of wine as a form of medicine. It's clear from the context that Paul was trying to give Timothy a bit of medical advice, and I think he gave Timothy some good advice there, don't you?

I think Paul did give Timothy good advice (not on scientific grounds), but without knowing Timothy's diagnosis, it would be dangerous to extend his prescription to others.

Obviously, neither God nor Moses would have wanted a drunk priest to minister in the temple. That's just common sense. In order to ensure this didn't happen, they were forbidden to drink wine well before they went into the Tabernacle.

'nuff said.

Only those few who were Nazarites for life were specifically forbidden from drinking wine throughout their entire lifetime.

Real Nazarites take lifetime vows. Those that break them end up like Samson.

In my view there is not one but two wise choices to make in relation to wine/beer consumption: one is total abstinence (your choice), and the other is moderation. Between the two, I have chosen moderation, and I have both scripture and science on my side in doing so.

Peace be with you.

by admitting there are two wise choices, you admit that scripture and science is on both sides.

peace
Nazaroo

 

[Nazaroo]

A recent report shows just how this cancer regarding marijuana is spreading North of the Mexican/American border.

Whereas just a few years ago, there were only a handful of "outdoor grow-ops" inside Northern California in the state-parks, now the Authorities are finding literally hundreds, even thousands of professionally set up grow-operations being built and operated in what were once pristine wildlife reserves.

The parks are being destroyed, but more importantly, whole truckloads of mexicans are being kidnapped and dragged up into the woods in California to live and tend grow-ops, illegally built in National Parks.

These people are forced to live in squalor, living outside in handmade lean-tos and mudhuts, while the huge Mexican Drug Cartels threaten to murder their family back home in Mexico if they don't cooperate.

Thus the murder and mayhem has now spread far North of the Mexican border, and the gangs operate all over the USA, while stupid young Americans supply the money that drives these gangs and arms them with modern weapons, used for brutal intimidation, torture and murder.

This is what buying even "homegrown" marijuana perpetuates. Vast quantities of loot for murderers and torturers.

Toke up fools, and when the same gangs kick in your door, shoot you and rape your wife or girlfriend, rob you of your property and rob your children of a future, remember, you financed them to do it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/11/hockey-mom-palin-resoundi_n_133913.html

PORTERVILLE, Calif. — National forests and parks _ long popular with Mexican marijuana-growing cartels _ have become home to some of the most polluted pockets of wilderness in America because of the toxic chemicals needed to eke lucrative harvests from rocky mountainsides, federal officials said.
The grow sites have taken hold from the West Coast's Cascade Mountains, as well as on federal lands in Kentucky, Tennessee and West Virginia.
Seven hundred grow sites were discovered on U.S. Forest Service land in California alone in 2007 and 2008 _ and authorities say the 1,800-square-mile Sequoia National Forest is the hardest hit.
Weed and bug sprays, some long banned in the U.S., have been smuggled to the marijuana farms. Plant growth hormones have been dumped into streams, and the water has then been diverted for miles in PVC pipes.
Rat poison has been sprinkled over the landscape to keep animals away from tender plants. And many sites are strewn with the carcasses of deer and bears poached by workers during the five-month growing season that is now ending.
"What's going on on public lands is a crisis at every level," said Forest Service agent Ron Pugh. "These are America's most precious resources, and they are being devastated by an unprecedented commercial enterprise conducted by armed foreign nationals. It is a huge mess."
The first documented marijuana cartels were discovered in Sequoia National Park in 1998. Then, officials say, tighter border controls after Sept. 11, 2001, forced industrial-scale growers to move their operations into the United States.

peace
Nazaroo

 

[Paulos]

Perhaps "wine on the lees" does mean something to this effect in the old Elizabethan English. But this is completely foreign to the text of Isaiah here:

וְעָשָׂה יְהוָה צְבָאֹות לְכָל־הָֽעַמִּים בָּהָר הַזֶּה מִשְׁתֵּה שְׁמָנִים מִשְׁתֵּה שְׁמָרִים שְׁמָנִים מְמֻחָיִם שְׁמָרִים מְזֻקָּקִֽים׃
​

"And Yahweh of Armies will prepare for all of the nations on this mountain a feast of choice foods, a banquet of the best shamarim ("drinks") metayim ("with pulp") , [and] shamarim ("drinks") metzqaqim ("purified")."

The normal word for "wine" is 'yayin', not 'shamar'.

The word translated as 'lees' in Isaiah 25:6 ('shemer') is also used in Jeremiah 48:11 KJV to refer to the racking process in wine-making:

Moab hath been at ease from his youth, and he hath settled on his lees ['shemer'], and hath not been emptied from vessel to vessel, neither hath he gone into captivity: therefore his taste remained in him, and his scent is not changed.​

Ordinarily, wine with pulp and other sediment is allowed to settle in one vessel, after which it is emptied into another vessel. As long as this transfer is carefully done, most of the lees will remain in the first vessel. This process is done in order to clarify the wine. However, sometimes wine is intentionally left to 'settle on the lees' in order to give it more body, flavor, aroma, etc., and this is the process referred to in the quote above from Jeremiah. The word 'shemer' is used instead of the normal word for wine--'yayin'--because 'wine on the lees' is effectually a different type of wine.

Here is a link to a website which gives a thorough explanation of making 'wine on the lees':

http://www.brsquared.org/wine/Articles/surlie/surlie.htm

An honest and fair admission, and due our respect.

Thank you.

I'll have a look at your other references.

'Yayin' is used in Numbers 6:20 KJV. The normal word for wine in OT Hebrew, 'yayin', comes from a root word meaning "to effervesce". This is an obvious reference to the fermentation process, because yeasts produce bubbles of carbon dioxide as part of their reaction to metabolizing sugars. (These same bubbles of carbon dioxide are what causes leavened dough to rise.)

'Shekar', which is translated as 'strong wine' or 'strong drink', is used in such passages as Numbers 28:7 KJV and Deuteronomy 14:26 KJV.

I enjoy unleavened bread when its available.

From the biblical perspective, I don't know of any reason to avoid leavened bread unless you are observing a holiday such as Passover.

I think Paul did give Timothy good advice (not on scientific grounds), but without knowing Timothy's diagnosis, it would be dangerous to extend his prescription to others.

Agreed. I am not a physician myself, and there are certainly some medical conditions for which wine should be completely avoided.

Luke was a physician and he was Paul's traveling companion on some of his missionary journeys, so Paul may have picked up the wine tip from him.

by admitting there are two wise choices, you admit that scripture and science is on both sides.

Yes, certainly.

 

[Nazaroo]

The word translated as 'lees' in Isaiah 25:6 ('shemer') is also used in Jeremiah 48:11 KJV to refer to the racking process in wine-making:

Moab hath been at ease from his youth, and he hath settled on his lees ['shemer'], and hath not been emptied from vessel to vessel, neither hath he gone into captivity: therefore his taste remained in him, and his scent is not changed.​

Ordinarily, wine with pulp and other sediment is allowed to settle in one vessel, after which it is emptied into another vessel. As long as this transfer is carefully done, most of the lees will remain in the first vessel. This process is done in order to clarify the wine. However, sometimes wine is intentionally left to 'settle on the lees' in order to give it more body, flavor, aroma, etc., and this is the process referred to in the quote above from Jeremiah. The word 'shemer' is used instead of the normal word for wine--'yayin'--because 'wine on the lees' is effectually a different type of wine.

This is far too elaborate and unnecessary.

The simple reason is this: When making grape juice (or any other juice), the pulp is strained for various reasons. There is no need to associate this with alcohol manufacturing.

A clear and simple translation giving the essential imagery would be as follows:

"Moab has been at ease since his youth, and he has settled in his sediment ['shemer'], and has not been poured between containers, nor has he gone into captivity: therefore his flavour has remained in him, and his scent is not [so far] changed."
​

Alcoholic fermentation is unnecessary, and not projected in this passage. European (Roman) ideas remain foreign to the text. Fermentation (and change of scent!) is not indicated.

peace
Nazaroo

 

[Gerald]

Real Nazarites take lifetime vows. Those that break them end up like Samson.

Idle curiosity here: do you wear your hair really long?

 

[Paulos]

Because the word οινος "oinos" alone was ambiguous, and was used for both fermented and unfermented juices, only the context would determine what was meant. When the context adequately determines the meaning, no other adjectives are required. The examples you gave give a context, and make clear that in those cases an alcoholic fermented beverage was referenced.

In other cases, an adjective is required, namely "new wine" (neos oinos) = Fresh Juice, and "old wine" = fermented juice. When both types of oinos are referenced in the same sentence or discussion, the adjective is required, to distinguish them.

A good example of the necessity of adjectives and the double-meaning of οινος is in Jesus' discussion of both types of oinos found in Matthew 9:17, where "new wine" clearly means unfermented juice, and "old wine" means fermented juice.

Your claim that "new wine" refers to unfermented juice appears to be contradicted by Hosea 4:11, which includes "new wine" on a short list of items that "take away the understanding". Obviously, this "new wine" must refer to fermented wine because no one would attempt to reasonably suggest that consumption of unfermented grape juice would dull anyone's senses.

The same Hebrew word used in Hosea 4:11 for "new wine" (tiyrowsh) is also used on 37 other occasions in the Old Testament, every one of which is seen in a positive light. This indicates to me that it is only the abuse of the "new wine" that is being criticized, and that there is a proper, moderate use, which is commended.

Reference: "Tiyrowsh - Hebrew Lexicon"; http://devel.searchgodsword.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=08492

 

[Triatomic]

Your claim that "new wine" refers to unfermented juice appears to be contradicted by Hosea 4:11, which includes "new wine" on a short list of items that "take away the understanding". Obviously, this "new wine" must refer to fermented wine because no one would attempt to reasonably suggest that consumption of unfermented grape juice would dull anyone's senses.

The same Hebrew word used in Hosea 4:11 for "new wine" (tiyrowsh) is also used on 37 other occasions in the Old Testament, every one of which is seen in a positive light. This indicates to me that it is only the abuse of the "new wine" that is being criticized, and that there is a proper, moderate use, which is commended.

Reference: "Tiyrowsh - Hebrew Lexicon"; http://devel.searchgodsword.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=08492

New wine has been used loosely throughout the bible, but none more prevalent then to substantiate claims that new wine is to be used with new wine skins. This was to show that if you try to use old wine skins with new wine, then you risk bursting the skins and ruining the wine.

 

[Paulos]

This is far too elaborate and unnecessary.

It isn't at all too elaborate or unnecessary, and I think that I can prove it.

The simple reason is this: When making grape juice (or any other juice), the pulp is strained for various reasons. There is no need to associate this with alcohol manufacturing.

Whether pulp is strained out of fresh unfermented grape juice or not does absolutely nothing to alter its flavor or aroma, but straining the lees from wine, or allowing the wine to settle on the lees for an extended period of time, does make a significant difference as to the flavor and aroma of wine, and this is exactly what is being referred to in Jeremiah 48:11 KJV. In ancient Israel, there was no way to age wine on the lees without it becoming fermented, so we have no choice but to associate this with alcohol manufacturing.

European (Roman) ideas remain foreign to the text. Fermentation (and change of scent!) is not indicated.

Wine-making in the ancient world was by no means a uniquely European or Roman idea. The Israelites had understanding of wine production before the Roman Empire was even founded. Knowledge of wine-making (and beer-making) goes back many thousands of years, before Israel was even established. Here's a good article to help prove it:

"Wine-making in Ancient Israel", By Garrett Peck
http://www.prohibitionhangover.com/israelwine.html

 

[Nazaroo]

It isn't at all too elaborate or unnecessary, and I think that I can prove it.



Whether pulp is strained out of fresh unfermented grape juice or not does absolutely nothing to alter its flavor or aroma, but straining the lees from wine, or allowing the wine to settle on the lees for an extended period of time, does make a significant difference as to the flavor and aroma of wine, and this is exactly what is being referred to in Jeremiah 48:11 KJV.

This is right where we disagree, and I'm still waiting any proof of your interpretation which you have imposed upon the Hebrew text.

In ancient Israel, there was no way to age wine on the lees without it becoming fermented, so we have no choice but to associate this with alcohol manufacturing.

Wrong again.

There were many methods and industries to prepare and preserve fruit juices, fruits, fruit sugars, jams and jellies, all without involving alcohol.

Just a few of the examples still in use today from Morocco to Turkey are:

(1) Submerging juice in cold running streams and lakes.
(2) boiling juice down to syrup.
(3) sealing juices and jams in clay containers with wax.


This is an old myth, used in the 19th century to justify wine-making and boozing in Europe, but it doesn't reflect current scholarship on Mediterranean husbandry.

Wine-making in the ancient world was by no means a uniquely European or Roman idea. The Israelites had understanding of wine production before the Roman Empire was even founded. Knowledge of wine-making (and beer-making) goes back many thousands of years, before Israel was even established. Here's a good article to help prove it:

No need to prove this. Its not in dispute. Early on in this thread, we already documented fact that beer-making was invented by the Egyptians 1000 years before Christ in the Middle Kingdom Period of Egypt. Other examples could be cited, but why bother?

Its just as clear that Jews were stubborn to the point of death by torture and sword in resisting Greek culture, including boozing. Just read all the books of the Maccabees, conveniently left out of Protestant Bibles, for the purpose of enabling drug-dealing, and booze-running to minors.

The fact is irrelevant to the practices of early Jewish asthetics and religious fanatics. The best documentation for that is not appeals to the abbhorent and abominable practices of OTHER nations, but to the plainly printed Rule of Holiness in the Torah:

Numbers 6.

peace
Nazaroo

 

[Paulos]

This is right where we disagree, and I'm still waiting any proof of your interpretation which you have imposed upon the Hebrew text.

Tell me, how does grape pulp or the lack of grape pulp influence either the flavor or aroma of unfermented grape juice? Grape juice tastes and smells like grape juice whether it has grape pulp or not, but whether fermented wine has been left on its lees or not does have a considerable effect on its aroma and flavor, as per Jeremiah 48:11.

Grape juice is grape juice. Grape juice does not change its flavor or aroma, but fermented wine does--depending on how it is allowed to ferment. Therefore, this verse (and Isaiah 25:6 KJV) must be referring to fermented wine.

There were many methods and industries to prepare and preserve fruit juices, fruits, fruit sugars, jams and jellies, all without involving alcohol.

Just a few of the examples still in use today from Morocco to Turkey are:

(1) Submerging juice in cold running streams and lakes.
(2) boiling juice down to syrup.
(3) sealing juices and jams in clay containers with wax.

Again, what would be the need of transferring grape juice "from vessel to vessel" as indicated in Jeremiah 48:11 if the juice had been submerged in cold water, boiled down to syrup, or sealed in clay containers with wax? Furthermore, what would such a transfer do to affect the flavor or aroma of the juice?

As the Bible-history.com website puts it:

"nfermented grape juice is a very difficult thing to keep without the aid of modern antiseptic precautions, and its preservation in the warm and not over-cleanly conditions of ancient Israel was impossible...In the climate of Israel fermentation begins almost immediately, frequently on the same day for juice pressed out in the morning, but never later than the next day. At first a slight foam appears on the surface of the liquid, and from that moment, according to Jewish tradition, it is liable to the wine-tithe. The action rapidly becomes more violent, and while it is in progress the liquid must be kept in jars or in a vat, for it would burst even the newest and strongest of wine-skins (Job 32:19). Within about a week this violent fermentation subsides, and the wine is transferred to other jars or strong wine-skins (Mk 2:22 and parallel's), in which it undergoes the secondary fermentation. At the bottom of the receptacles collects the heavier matter or "lees", from which the "wines on the lees" gather strength and flavor.
At the end of 40 days it was regarded as properly "wine" and could be offered as a drink offering. The practice after this point seems to have varied, no doubt depending on the sort of wine that was being made. Certain kinds were left undisturbed to age "on their lees" and were thought to be all the better for so doing, but before they were used it was necessary to strain them very carefully. So Isa 25:6, 'A feast of wine aged on the lees, thoroughly strained.' But usually leaving the wine in the fermentation vessels interfered with its improvement or caused it to degenerate. So at the end of 40 days it was drawn off into other jars (for storage, 1 Ch 27:27, etc.) or wine-skins (for transportation, Josh 9:4, etc.)."​

Source: http://www.bible-history.com/isbe/W/WINE;+WINE+PRESS/

Its just as clear that Jews were stubborn to the point of death by torture and sword in resisting Greek culture, including boozing. Just read all the books of the Maccabees, conveniently left out of Protestant Bibles, for the purpose of enabling drug-dealing, and booze-running to minors.

The fact is irrelevant to the practices of early Jewish asthetics and religious fanatics. The best documentation for that is not appeals to the abbhorent and abominable practices of OTHER nations, but to the plainly printed Rule of Holiness in the Torah:

Numbers 6.

Your characterization of Greek culture as "including boozing" indicates unawareness of the true Greek view of wine consumption. For example, here is what Plato had to write on the subject in The Laws:

"Shall we not ordain by law, in the first place, that boys shall not, on any account, taste wine till they are eighteen years old? In the next place, we should inform them that wine is to be used moderately till they are thirty years old. But when they have attained the fortieth year, then they may attend feasts; for Bacchus has bestowed wine upon men as a remedy against the austerity of old age, that through this we might acquire a second youth, forget sorrow [cf. Proverbs 31:6], and the manners of the mind be rendered softer, as iron is softened by the action of the fire."​

Plato also wrote that wine "...according to the assertions of some, was given to men as a punishment, that they might be rendered insane: But we have now said that it is, on the contrary, medicine; and was given that the soul might acquire modesty, and the body health and vigour." (In other words, Plato advocated proper use, as opposed to misuse or abuse, of wine.)

Your opinion of Hellenistic culture as "including boozing" is probably inspired by images of the Bacchanalian festivals, but it should be made known that the Bacchanalians were a religious cult whose activities were frowned upon by the larger Greco-Roman society, and eventually the Roman senate moved to repress them in 186 BC.

Aside from Plato, "From Athenaeus we learn that the Greeks often mingled their wine with water; sometimes one part of wine to two of water; three parts of water to one of wine; and at other times three parts of water to two of wine...Among the Locrians, if any one was found to have drunk unmixed wine, unless prescribed by a physician, he was punished with death; the laws of Zaleucus so requiring. And among the Romans, no servant, nor free woman, nor youths of quality, drank any wine till they were thirty years of age." (Source: Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae; http://www.godrules.net/library/clarke/clarke1tim5.htm)

It may have been that the Hebrews did not accept the custom of diluting wine with water until after the conquest of Palestine by Alexander the Great. It's interesting that you should bring up the books of the Maccabees, because prior to their Greek influence, Isaiah 1:22 speaks negatively about mixing wine with water, but 2 Maccabees 15:40, which was written after the Greek conquest, states that "it is harmful to drink wine alone or water alone, whereas mixing wine with water makes a more pleasant drink that increases delight".

In short, mainstream Hellenistic culture viewed wine consumption and drunkenness in largely the same way as did the Hebrews of the Old Testament.

 

[Nazaroo]

Tell me, how does grape pulp or the lack of grape pulp influence either the flavor or aroma of unfermented grape juice? Grape juice tastes and smells like grape juice whether it has grape pulp or not, but whether fermented wine has been left on its lees or not does have a considerable effect on its aroma and flavor, as per Jeremiah 48:11.

Grape juice is grape juice. Grape juice does not change its flavor or aroma, but fermented wine does--depending on how it is allowed to ferment.

Therefore, this verse (and Isaiah 25:6 KJV) must be referring to fermented wine.

Again, in the absence of any sensible proof for your translation and interpretation of the Hebrew passage, you just repeat what we already probably agree upon.

Your logical claim which follows, above, however, is simpy a non sequiter.

I'm still waiting for good linguistic and historical arguments that would support your interpretation, and none are forthcoming, obviously.

Again, what would be the need of transferring grape juice "from vessel to vessel" as indicated in Jeremiah 48:11 if the juice had been submerged in cold water, boiled down to syrup, or sealed in clay containers with wax?

Why play so dumb?

Anyone who has watched a panhandler, or sifted muddy water for an object knows the value of transfering the clearer part of any watery suspension to another container, and repeating this process to purify/clarify (remove suspended solids) from a liquid.

The process of boiling, and/or storing food comes AFTERWARD, as you can easily imagine, unless the right-brain (responsible for geometric thinking) has been damaged by a horse-kick.

Furthermore, what would such a transfer do to affect the flavor or aroma of the juice?

The answer to this question is "who cares?" (rhetorical only).

Since the passage talks about Moab being unchanged, and obviously filthy, the metaphoric images of panhandling him between containers are quite cute.

As the Bible-history.com website puts it:

"nfermented grape juice is a very difficult thing to keep without the aid of modern antiseptic precautions, and its preservation in the warm and not over-cleanly conditions of ancient Israel was impossible...
​

What nonsense.

At the end of 40 days it was regarded as properly "wine" and could be offered as a drink offering.
​

No documentation, and no plausibility.

The practice after this point seems to have varied, no doubt depending on the sort of wine that was being made.
​

No doubt! And no doubt the "sources" used for this turned out to be heavily conflicting. We can have little doubt that the source was the Talmud. I have spent years struggling with the Babylonian Aramaic of large portions of this. I can testify firsthand of its ambiguous and self-contradictory nature. There is no other earlier Palestinian source.

Certain kinds were left undisturbed to age "on their lees" and were thought to be all the better for so doing, but before they were used it was necessary to strain them very carefully. So Isa 25:6, 'A feast of wine aged on the lees, thoroughly strained.'

But usually leaving the wine in the fermentation vessels interfered with its improvement or caused it to degenerate. So at the end of 40 days it was drawn off into other jars (for storage, 1 Ch 27:27, etc.) or wine-skins (for transportation, Josh 9:4, etc.)."​

Source: http://www.bible-history.com/isbe/W/WINE;+WINE+PRESS/

Absurd, and unreliable, undocumented bogus 'authority'. Got anything better?

Your characterization of Greek culture as "including boozing" indicates unawareness of the true Greek view of wine consumption.


For example, here is what Plato had to write on the subject
[blah blah blah...]

Plato also wrote [blah blah blah...] (In other words, Plato advocated proper use, as opposed to misuse or abuse, of wine.)

This is precisely what happened to Christianity from about 310 A.D. onward. It was completely infested with Platonic garbage.

This is anachronistic as hell, but interestingly tells more about where you are coming from (a wine-making monastery?) than about Hebrew culture in Palestine in the Herodian period.

Your opinion of Hellenistic culture as "including boozing" is probably inspired by images of the Bacchanalian festivals, but it should be made known that the Bacchanalians were a religious cult whose activities were frowned upon by the larger Greco-Roman society, and eventually the Roman senate moved to repress them in 186 BC.

As if this matters. Or Plato.

It was the Greek Empire and army of ALEXANDER and his sons who clashed with the Hebrews of Palestine, not Greek philosophers or Roman senators a thousand miles away.

The Greek armies were pillaging, raping, hedonistic boozers with swords, who enjoyed the gymnasium, not 'sensible' law-abiding quaint little homosexual philosophers.

Aside from Plato, "From Athenaeus we learn that the Greeks often mingled their wine with water; sometimes one part of wine to two of water; three parts of water to one of wine; and at other times three parts of water to two of wine...Among the Locrians, if any one was found to have drunk unmixed wine, unless prescribed by a physician, he was punished with death; the laws of Zaleucus so requiring. And among the Romans, no servant, nor free woman, nor youths of quality, drank any wine till they were thirty years of age." (Source: Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae; http://www.godrules.net/library/clarke/clarke1tim5.htm)

Do you honestly think the above has any historical reality to it? What crap. I'm glad I wasn't drinking wine while reading this, or else the wine might have come out my nose (and ***).

It may have been that the Hebrews did not accept the custom of diluting wine with water until after the conquest of Palestine by Alexander the Great. It's interesting that you should bring up the books of the Maccabees, because prior to their Greek influence, Isaiah 1:22 speaks negatively about mixing wine with water, but 2 Maccabees 15:40, which was written after the Greek conquest, states that "it is harmful to drink wine alone or water alone, whereas mixing wine with water makes a more pleasant drink that increases delight".

With this you win the all-time bonehead award for ridiculous exegesis!

It demonstrates you haven't understood a single thing about any part of this Biblical tradition.

(1) The complaints about watering down the wine are just that: complaints against dishonesty and fraud, not complaints about the strength of grape juice or any other liquid.

(2) The Hebrews couldn't care less if people diluted their wine, and neither did the Greeks. The specific complaints against the Greeks by the Hebrews was their lawlessness and uncleanness, and their lewdness, inspired by their excess in everything from eating and drinking, to fornication and nudity.
If you missed this, you missed a whole century of cultural warfare as violent as any now in the Middle East.

(3) The Hebrews were forced by the Greeks to break their purity laws and food laws, and they desecrated the Temple by killing a pig on the altar. Also the Greeks murdered thousands of Israelites who would not participate in Greek lawlessness.
If you missed this, you missed the entire background to the New Testament.

In short, mainstream Hellenistic culture viewed wine consumption and drunkenness in largely the same way as did the Hebrews of the Old Testament.

...Which has nothing to do with these passages, or the conflict between the Greeks and the Jews.

peace
Nazaroo

 

[Paulos]

Real Nazarites take lifetime vows. Those that break them end up like Samson.

Idle curiosity here: do you wear your hair really long?

I, too, am curious about this, Gerald.

Nazaroo, if I may inquire, when was the last time you got a hair cut? Also, when was the last time you consumed grapes, raisins, grape juice, or any food which contains grape products or grape extracts?

What is your source for your claim that "Real Nazarites take lifetime vows"? This is obviously contradicted by Numbers 6:13-20.

 

[Nazaroo]

I, too, am curious about this, Gerald.

Nazaroo, if I may inquire, when was the last time you got a hair cut? Also, when was the last time you consumed grapes, raisins, grape juice, or any food which contains grape products or grape extracts?

Long time, but specific dates are not your business, since I have a longstanding policy of not giving out personal info over the net.

Typically modern Nazarites keep their on/off schedules secret, especially from their enemies (lesson learned from Samson). There's no temple, and priests can't be trusted these days.

I don't eat so much as a grape-seed willingly or knowingly. Its hard to shop for me, because many typical grocerystore products use white grapejuice as a filler in things as unlikely as bread, lemonaide, and cheese.

Thats why I do my own shopping.

What is your source for your claim that "Real Nazarites take lifetime vows"? This is obviously contradicted by Numbers 6:13-20.

Answer: Judges 13:5.

Its Numbers 6 that contradicts Judges (an older document) not the other way around.

Numbers 6 is for YOU guys, ordinary Israelite poofkas. wimps, faggy little limp-wristed boys, too timid to be real Nazarites. The priests there suggest a one or 2 week vow for those not used to being holy, which is just about all of you.

Since you have to actually keep vows, I suggest you follow the priests' guidelines so you don't get hopelessly into debt through failure the first 5 times you try to take a Nazarite vow.

you'll know your vow is working if you can rip a phonebook in half.

Good luck [/smerk]

peace
Nazaroo

 

[Nazaroo]

I, too, am curious about this, Gerald.

Nazaroo, if I may inquire, when was the last time you got a hair cut?

Never. Thats a Roman practice, just as shaving is an Egyptian one, and shaving your body is a Greek homo behavior.

No self-respecting Israelite shaves their beard, since its against the Torah, even for those not on a Nazarite vow.

Here's a bit of advice: Don't imitate sinful heathen practices, even in jest.


peace
Nazaroo

 

[Gerald]

Long time, but specific dates are not your business, since I have a longstanding policy of not giving out personal info over the net.

Typically modern Nazarites keep their on/off schedules secret, especially from their enemies (lesson learned from Samson). There's no temple, and priests can't be trusted these days.

Nazarites also tend to be a bit paranoid, if you're any indication.

It's not like the Philistines are looking to settle the score.

Numbers 6 is for YOU guys, ordinary Israelite poofkas. wimps, faggy little limp-wristed boys, too timid to be real Nazarites. The priests there suggest a one or 2 week vow for those not used to being holy, which is just about all of you.

Since you have to actually keep vows, I suggest you follow the priests' guidelines so you don't get hopelessly into debt through failure the first 5 times you try to take a Nazarite vow.

you'll know your vow is working if you can rip a phonebook in half.

Good luck [/smerk]

Ripping a phone book in half? That's less than impressive. Anybody with an understanding of leverage can do that.

Call me when you can stop bullets without injury, and then I'll allow that you might be onto something (as opposed to just on something...).

 

[Gerald]

Never. Thats a Roman practice, just as shaving is an Egyptian one, and shaving your body is a Greek homo behavior.

No self-respecting Israelite shaves their beard, since its against the Torah, even for those not on a Nazarite vow.

Here's a bit of advice: Don't imitate sinful heathen practices, even in jest.


peace
Nazaroo

And people wonder why I call Middle Easterners "hairy barbarians"... :chuckle:

 

[Paulos]

In response to my question, "When was the last time you consumed grapes, raisins, grape juice, or any food which contains grape products or grape extracts?", Nazaroo replied:

Long time, but specific dates are not your business, since I have a longstanding policy of not giving out personal info over the net.

Typically modern Nazarites keep their on/off schedules secret, especially from their enemies (lesson learned from Samson). There's no temple, and priests can't be trusted these days.

I don't eat so much as a grape-seed willingly or knowingly. Its hard to shop for me, because many typical grocerystore products use white grapejuice as a filler in things as unlikely as bread, lemonaide, and cheese.

Thats why I do my own shopping.

Thanks for the reply, Nazaroo, but I am at a loss to understand your need for secrecy on this issue. It turns out that you have already given a specific date earlier in this thread. On September 3rd, 2009, you made the following post:

I have held the same view of both the pharmaceutical industry, and also about drinking, for over 35 years, the approximate length of time that I have been a Nazarite. (see Numbers ch.6).

So, you have been a Nazarite for some 35 or 36 years now. This would mean that you haven't knowingly consumed grapes, raisins, or any grape-related or derived substance in that length of time, correct?

____________

In response to my question, "Nazaroo, if I may inquire, when was the last time you got a haircut?" You replied:

Never. Thats a Roman practice, just as shaving is an Egyptian one, and shaving your body is a Greek homo behavior.

No self-respecting Israelite shaves their beard, since its against the Torah, even for those not on a Nazarite vow.

Do you mean to say that you have never shaved in your entire life, and that even as a child, your parents never had any of your hair cut even once? But you said that you have been a Nazarite for 35 years. I am assuming that you are much older than 35. Does this mean that you never got your hair cut, even before you became a Nazarite?

__________

In answer to my question, "What is your source for your claim that "real Nazarites take lifetime vows", as this is obviously contradicted by Numbers 6:13-20?" Nazaroo replied:

Answer: Judges 13:5.

Its Numbers 6 that contradicts Judges (an older document) not the other way around.

Numbers 6 is for YOU guys, ordinary Israelite poofkas. wimps, faggy little limp-wristed boys, too timid to be real Nazarites. The priests there suggest a one or 2 week vow for those not used to being holy, which is just about all of you.

People who were life-long Nazarites, such as Samson, were extremely rare and specifically chosen before their birth. They were never to shave their hair or consume grape products, and even the mothers of such children were instructed to avoid "grape juice" during their pregnancies (e.g., Judges 13:7). Did your mother avoid grape juice during her pregnancy with you? Were you chosen from before your birth to be a Nazarite, and raised as a Nazarite after your birth? You cannot be a life-long "true Nazarite", as you claim you are, unless all these things apply to you.

According to Numbers 6:18, upon completion of his vow the Nazarite was to shave his head. Acts 18:18 tells us that Paul "shaved his head in Cenchrea" upon completion of his vow. Acts 21:24 further states that four men with Paul also shaved their heads. There is no need for me to ask you if you consider yourself to be more holy than Paul, because I already know that you do, but do you really consider Paul to be an "ordinary Israelite poofka, wimp, faggy little limp-wristed boy, too timid to be a real Nazarite", as you put it?

The Nazarite vow is a vow of holiness, meaning those who drink wine are NOT holy.

Are you saying that Jesus was not holy? After all, it is explicitly stated in such passages as Luke 7:33-34 and Matthew 26:29 that Jesus drank wine/grape juice. Furthermore, Jesus' first recorded miracle is creating wine/grape juice out of water as recorded in John 2:1-11. Jesus also likened himself to a grapevine in John 15:1-8, with his followers as the branches. Jesus also taught many parables that involved vineyards. If grapes and "grape juice" were such unholy items, why did Jesus consume them and refer to them in such a positive light?

 

[Nazaroo]

Thanks for the reply, Nazaroo, but I am at a loss to understand your need for secrecy on this issue.

Glad you have no enemies, even high-school pranksters.
But Jews and Israelis have a different view on caution and enemies.

It turns out that you have already given a specific date earlier in this thread.

Thats not a specific date.

So, you have been a Nazarite for some 35 or 36 years now. This would mean that you haven't knowingly consumed grapes, raisins, or any grape-related or derived substance in that length of time, correct?

Yes. Why reiterate what a Nazarite vow is? Its not rocket-science.

Do you mean to say that you have never shaved in your entire life, and that even as a child, your parents never had any of your hair cut even once?

Children aren't responsible for what their parents do. They are under their authority. For a child, a Nazarite vow would be the responsibility of the parent as shown in Judges.

Not my responsibility, not my sin, not my culpability, not my problem.

But you said that you have been a Nazarite for 35 years. I am assuming that you are much older than 35. Does this mean that you never got your hair cut, even before you became a Nazarite?

You can add, all the way up to 35. We can work on multiplication when we review the Biblical view of marriage.

Too bad you can't seem to understand the basic consequences of logic. You know I've been a Nazarite over 35 years, and yet you want to discuss the time when I was NOT a Nazarite, as if it had any significance whatsoever.

But I've already told you I don't give personal info over the net.

People who were life-long Nazarites, such as Samson, were extremely rare and specifically chosen before their birth.

Again, your Biblical exegesis sucks.

The Nazarite vow is the only voluntary law in the whole Torah, of 613 alleged commandments. As such it is normally engaged when a person is an adult with appropriate education, hopefully being taught to be a good Israelite from childhood.

You wish to confuse and conflate two categories of Nazarite:

(1) Nazarites born and appointed to be so by God through an Angel.

(2) Adults who voluntarily become lifelong Nazarites as adults. That there is such a second category is evident from such scriptures as "Be Holy, for I the LORD am Holy", and Jesus' words for example on eunichs (men voluntarily celibate).

Its never too late for you to stop selling drugs like alcohol, and join category (2).

You cannot be a life-long "true Nazarite", as you claim you are, unless all these things apply to you.

Wrong again. I CAN claim to be a life-long Nazarite, because I have taken such a vow. I don't need an angel to announce my birth. See category (2) if you are still this slow on the uptake.

...
do you really consider Paul to be an "ordinary Israelite poofka, wimp, faggy little limp-wristed boy, too timid to be a real Nazarite", as you put it?

Paul [Saul] started out a goof, but got smacked down by Jesus. In the end I think he turned out alright.

Are you saying that Jesus was not holy? After all, it is explicitly stated in such passages as Luke 7:33-34 and Matthew 26:29 that Jesus drank wine/grape juice.

I pity the fool who thinks he can find a scripture that shows Jesus drank 'wine' (oinos) fermented or unfermented during His public ministry, Although He would have been free to do so when not on His Nazarite vow, whenever that might have been, if he was not on a lifetime vow.

Again your exegesis and understanding of the Holy Scriptures blows chunks.

Furthermore, Jesus' first recorded miracle is creating wine/grape juice out of water as recorded in John 2:1-11.

It was not His first "miracle", it was His first SIGN to the Jews. At that time, His entire Galilean ministry was nearly over. John records seven (7) SIGNS for the religious authorities and the Southern Judeans (inhabitants of Southern Kingdom of Judea, descendents of the tribes of Judah, Benjamin, and a remnant of Levites).

Again, work on your reading comprehension.

Jesus also likened himself to a grapevine in John 15:1-8, with his followers as the branches.

There is quite a discussion among Aramaists at this very moment on whether or not Jesus originally said "tree" here (in Aramaic or Hebrew), as recorded in the Aramaic and Syriac versions of the NT and the Diatessaron.

I'll keep you posted.

Jesus also taught many parables that involved vineyards. If grapes and "grape juice" were such unholy items, why did Jesus consume them and refer to them in such a positive light?

Jesus didn't consume them. The unfermented grape-juice required at the Pascha was not taken by Jesus.

Instead, Jesus records the strongest Nazarite vow ever spoken, in renewing His yearly pledge:

"Truly I say to you that I SHALL NOT DRINK of the fruit of the vine (grapejuice), until the Kingdom of God comes!" (Luke 22:18)
​

If you missed this, you were again asleep at the wheel.

peace
Nazaroo