(Disclaimer: This transcript is auto-generated and may contain mistakes.)

Let's play another clip, because I could just get mad all night. We could go on and on about this guy. We got another one, Jeff Durbin. Pastor Jeff. Pastor Jeff. Pastor Jeff Durbin. So this clip, I could preview it for you. This here is a compilation of Jeff Durbin asserting that Jesus in John chapter number two turned water into, quote, wine with strong fermentation. That he turned water into wine with, quote, strong fermentation. And so Jeff Durbin makes this argument, of course, in an effort to push the idea that drinking alcohol is permissible for Christians. And so we'll go ahead and play this clip now. Brother Tim, if you can get it teed up and ready to go. And I got the thumbs up. So let's listen to Jeff Durbin arguing for alcohol, a proponent of drinking alcohol. It speaks glowingly about wine in the Bible. He calls it a blessing, promises to bless his people with the choices of wines. Jesus turned gallons upon gallons of water into wine with strong fermentation. Do you think that Jesus turned water into wine for the glory of God? When Jesus turned water into alcoholic wine, was that to the glory of God or was that a sin? Was that a sin for Jesus to do that when he turned water into wine, alcoholic wine at a wedding feast at a celebration? Now, drunkenness is a wicked sin that will send you to hell. But you're going to have to face the facts that the Bible actually speaks very highly about alcohol. And it's as a blessing and not to be abused. You're actually making your savior look like a sinner because he actually turned water into wine at a wedding. And it was alcoholic wine. There is no way exegetically around that. When you look at the scriptures and you see God actually saying he's going to bless his people with the choicest wines. When you see God telling his people to sell their stuff and to make capital to buy wine and strong drink for a celebration, you're making God look evil because of your tradition, not because of scripture, because of your tradition. So he says there's no way exegetically around the fact in his mind that John chapter two is teaching Jesus turned water into alcoholic wine with strong fermentation. Those are his words. Thankfully, we have a pastor sitting to my left who might be able to respond to that. What do you think about this claim? He, of course, uses the age old Deuteronomy 14. We'll get to that later. But John chapter two, I think, is kind of the main portion of his argument where he's claiming that Jesus, and this is what a lot, this is like the John 3 16 of the alcohol proponent crowd that Jesus turned alcohol or should say turned water into alcoholic wine. Well, you know, first of all, it's hard to even think of what his name is, because I just think Jeff Bourbon every time I see this guy. I mean, the guy obviously has just a strong proclivity to want to drink alcohol. To think that Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior, would make an intoxicating beverage for a large group of people, which, again, he's basically making Jesus a bartender or something, which why in the world would Jesus Christ, the God of the universe, be trying to entice people to become alcoholics or to become drunk at a party that he's there hosting? This is just a weird straw man that he tries to paint. He says, well, you're if you're saying that Jesus didn't turn water into to wine, then you're denying the Bible. But if you say Jesus turned into wine and you think it's alcoholic and that's wrong, then you're making him a sinner. So he tries to she tries to say, like, if alcohol is a sin, then Jesus is a sinner, which it's like or I'm sorry if I'm sorry if wine is alcoholic there, then you're making Jesus Jesus into a thing. It's not alcoholic. What about that option? What about that logic? And again, this is where you get people and they say it's indefensible. The idea that wine in the Bible would not be alcoholic. They they didn't even know how to invent it until Welch's. They didn't even know what fruit juice was or anything. It's like this stupid idea that for thousands of years, no one on the planet ever squeezed the fruit and noticed that it's like they couldn't even understand that if you take an orange and you like squeeze it, there's juice that they probably never even eaten fruit. I mean, fruit didn't even exist to these people. You know, there's there's no example of them ever having any kind of fruit juice or any kind of beverage. And in fact, they basically make it where the only alcohol, the only beverages that exist on the planet were water and booze. That's it. Just water and booze. There's no other beverages, no other drink. I mean, that's the absurd opinion. That's the absurd idea. When you want to go and say back in those days, they didn't have the apple juice and the orange juice. Yeah, maybe they didn't have a plethora of juice. I'll grant you that. But to say that they didn't they didn't invent juice until the last couple hundred years or something like that is complete asinine ludicrous. I mean, of course they had juice. And of course, Jesus Christ, when giving wine to a whole bunch of people at a party at a wedding, was making non-alcoholic wine. It's very obvious. I mean, most every wedding that I've ever gone to, they have like a wedding punch. I mean, have you been to a wedding? What do they serve? Yeah, it's a lot of fruit juice, the wedding punch, cranberry juice, fruit punch or something like that. It's very common to have some kind of a beverage that's a little bit fancier at a wedding. So of course, they're running out of this fancy beverage because people normally are drinking water at home or they don't have the luxuries. So when they're at this feast or at this party, they're all excited about drinking this great fruit juice beverage. And when they run out, they're like, well, they can't just run to the store and get more. It's hard to just get fruit in there. So Jesus does a great miracle by turning water into fresh fruit juice. And it was better, more fresh, better tasting than the other juice that they had had before, which is exactly what the whole story is. There is no insinuation here that anyone has gotten drunk, is getting drunk, is enjoying alcohol. That is coming from a perverted mind, from perverted hearts that want to justify drinking. That's why we call him Jeff Bourbon because we know what's in his heart, bourbon. And we know what's in his liver, bourbon. Now, well, sorry, go ahead. I was just going to say he claims there's no way exegetically around the fact that this was alcoholic wine. I just don't understand where exactly he's getting that claim or where that would come from at all. Because I look at the text and in John chapter 2, what it says in verse 7, Jesus saith unto them, fill the water pots with water and they fill them up to the brim. And they say unto them, draw out now and bear unto the governor of the feast. And they bear it. When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine and knew not whence it was, but the servants which drew the water knew, the governor of the feast called the bridegroom. This is the part that I really wanted to focus on in verse 10 when it says, and sayeth unto him, every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine. And when men have well drunk, then that which is worse, but thou hast kept the good wine until now. He wants to talk about how there's no way around exegetically. Of course, he has to use the fancy theological term to put himself on a platform from an intellectual perspective. But in verse 10, it says when men have well drunk, so I'm supposed to believe if we're going to look at this through the Jeff bourbon glasses, through the lenses of Jeff bourbon, I'm supposed to believe that Jesus Christ went to a wedding feast in which people had been drinking lots and lots of alcoholic wine and he gave them more. So what he did is he enabled these people to get even more drunk. That's the only conclusion you could possibly come to is that Jesus enabled a bunch of people to get drunk, like severely drunk at this party. If you want to conclude that this was alcoholic wine, there's no way around that conclusion. Well, and again, when we talk about these verses and we talk about these scriptures, they want to try and suggest that Jesus would be a sinner if he made alcohol. And of course, this is kind of an interesting proposition, because number one, if Jesus did it, it wouldn't be a sin because Jesus can't sin. He's incapable of sinning and even suggest that any Christian believes that is really just not even trying to have an intellectual argument. But of course, I do believe it would be wrong for any person to serve a large group of people alcohol after they've drunk a ton of alcohol. What kind of logic? Because these people will say, well, it's not a problem to drink moderately. But in the passage doesn't say anybody drink moderately. It's saying they drank to the full. So how could you then argue that no one's drunk? I mean, what would be the... It's drink, drank, drunk. Exactly. And again, this passage, if that's true, Pastor Shelley would contradict even their narrative that getting drunk is the sin, because that's what they would say. They would say the line is drunkenness. Well, how could these people not have been drunk? How is it possible for them not to have been drunk after they drank all this wine? And then Jesus gives them even more. Think about what they're doing to the Messiah. Think of the way that they're portraying Jesus. He wants to sit there and say, we're turning him into a sinner. Well, he's turning him into a guy that makes a bunch of drunk people even more drunk. Well, how about Habakkuk 2, which says, woe unto him that giveth his neighbor drink that putteth thy bottle to him and maketh him drunken also. I mean, how is that not just a literal violation of Habakkuk 2 saying, hey, oh, you guys are well drunk. Let me fill you up some more, buddy. Give me some more. I mean, that's their Jesus. Their Jesus is a drunk Jesus just partying it up. College frat boy Jesus. Have some more wine and some more bourbon and some more Jack Daniels. Forget Daniel the prophet. How about Jack Daniels? I mean, this is the absurdity.