Adventists-Bible does not prohibit all alcohol.

[Jamdoc]

Yes, I agree. And for the Israelite soldier living in a time and place where morphine is not available, alcohol can be used instead, imo.

Correct, my point was not to disagree with the use of alcohol, my point was just I don't think that verse meant that, just context.

 

[Jipsah]

They could have just drank the juice and not let it go bad.

Sure, just keep it in the fridge.

 

[Jipsah]

If you are feeling guilt over biblical scripture being shared with you that is the Holy Spirit and not anything an SDA is saying.

Guilty of what?

Most of the SDA posts are filled with scripture quotes

Some of which may even have some bearing on the subject under discussion.

most of the responses we receive back is filled with personal opinions.

Kind of like the post to which I'm responding, right?

My opinion? Sabbatarianism is bunk. Keep the whole Law, and not just selected bits of it. Yoiu still won't be justified thereby: "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified."

Wanna keep Shabbos? Go for it, and more power to you. But it won't do you any more good than it does the unbelieving Jews. We're justified by faith in Christ, end of.

 

[Jamdoc]

Guilty of what?

Some of which may even have some bearing on the subject under discussion.

Kind of like the post to which I'm responding, right?

My opinion? Sabbatarianism is bunk. Keep the whole Law, and not just selected bits of it. Yoiu still won't be justified thereby: "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified."

Wanna keep Shabbos? Go for it, and more power to you. But it won't do you any more good than it does the unbelieving Jews. We're justified by faith in Christ, end of.

If you want to observe Sabbath it should purely be out of love for God and wanting to obey Him even if you get nothing out of it yourself.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Guilty of what?

Some of which may even have some bearing on the subject under discussion.

Kind of like the post to which I'm responding, right?

My opinion? Sabbatarianism is bunk. Keep the whole Law, and not just selected bits of it. Yoiu still won't be justified thereby: "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified."

Wanna keep Shabbos? Go for it, and more power to you. But it won't do you any more good than it does the unbelieving Jews. We're justified by faith in Christ, end of.

Unbelieving Jews would not break God's Sabbath and either should we. According to John God's saints have both the faith and keep God's commandments.

Revelations 14:12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.

Also according to John, there is only a remnant left who still keep God's commandments- I find this to be true.

Revelations 12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

If you want to observe Sabbath it should purely be out of love for God and wanting to obey Him even if you get nothing out of it yourself.

I agree, we should observe the Sabbath simply because He asked. God bless.

 

[Butterball1]

I believe you're overthinking this. Jesus himself turned water into wine at Cana. And this was after they had already been drinking.

And Paul advised Timothy that deacons should not be heavy drinkers. The two Bibles I use the most, the ESV and NET, use the phrases "not addicted to much wine" and "not given to excessive drinking". Paul is describing moderation, not abstinence.

I think you're placing a rule upon believers that neither Jesus nor Paul did.

"This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him."

---The purpose of Jesus performing miracles was to manifest His glory and enduce a belief in Him neither of which could be accomplished by causing/contributing to the drunkenness of others.

---"IF" Jesus supplied fermented, alcoholic wine to those already drunken, then there would be nothing wrong with the production, selling, serving, giving away of alcholic beverages. The implcation is the acceptable consequences of people being killed by drunk drivers, domestic violence/abuse, etc by those who consume alcholic beverages. Jesus would never engage in such nor accept such consequences. Jesus would not condone social drinking in Jn 2 only later to condemn it Eph 5:18; 1 Peter 4:3, Galatians 5:21; Proverbs 20:1; etc.

--The word 'wine' a used in the KJV is a generic word for grape juice, it may or may not be fermented (Isaiah 65:8; Isaiah 16:10; Joel 2:24 - grape juice is called 'wine'). "Wine" therefore does not always refer to an intoxcating drink. It is being ASSUMED Jesus made an intoxicant. What Jesus made is called "good wine".
"Historical writings provide evidence that the best wine of biblical days was nonalcoholic. Pliny the Younger said, “The most useful wine has all its force or strength broken by the filter.” Plutarch said, “Wine is rendered feeble in strength when it is frequently filtered. The strength or spirit thus being excluded, the wine neither inflames the brain nor infests the mind and passions, and is much more pleasant to drink."
Did Jesus Turn Water Into Alcoholic Wine? - Articles ‹ University church of Christ, Auburn, AL

“We should not be deceived by the phrase “good wine.” We often use the phrase to denote that it is good in proportion to its strength and its power to intoxicate; but no such sense is to be attached to the word here. Pliny, Plutarch, and Horace describe wine as good, or mention that as the best wine, which was harmless or innocent–poculo vini innocentis. The most useful wine — utilissimum vinum— was that which had little strength; and the most wholesome wine– saluberrimum vinum— was that which had not been adulterated by “the addition of anything to the must or juice.” Pliny expressly says that a “good wine” was one that was destitute of spirit (lib. iv. c. 13). It should not be assumed, therefore, that the “good wine” was stronger than the other: it is rather to be presumed that it was milder. The wine referred to here was doubtless such as was commonly drunk in Palestine. That was the pure juice of the grape. It was not brandied wine, nor drugged wine, nor wine compounded of various substances, such as we drink in this land. The common wine drunk in Palestine was that which was the simple juice of the grape. We use the word wine now to denote the kind of liquid which passes under that name in this country–always containing a considerable portion of alcohol –not only the alcohol produced by fermentation, but alcohol added to keep it or make it stronger. But we have no right to take that sense of the word, and go with it to the interpretation of the Scriptures. We should endeavor to place ourselves in the exact circumstances of those times, ascertain precisely what idea the word would convey to those who used it then, and apply that sense to the word in the interpretation of the Bible; and there is not the slightest evidence that the word so used would have conveyed any idea but that of the pure juice of the grape, nor the slightest circumstance mentioned in this account that would not be fully met by such a supposition." Albert Barnes Comm. on the Bible.

 

[Butterball1]

Not social drinking as in knocking back several beers. But drinking small amounts while eating with others, yes.

John 2:9 When the master of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and did not know where it came from (but the servants who had drawn the water knew), the master of the feast called the bridegroom. 10 And he said to him, “Every man at the beginning sets out the good wine, and when the guests have well drunk, then the inferior. You have kept the good wine until now!”

Luk 7:33 For John the Baptist has come eating no bread and drinking no wine, and you say, ‘He has a demon.’
Luk 7:34 The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’
Luk 7:35 Yet wisdom is justified by all her children.”

1Ti_5:23 (No longer drink only water, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments.)

--Is is ASSUMED the wine Jesus made was alcoholic. Jeus would not violate the OT or His own NT is causing others to sin.

--the phrase "eating and drinking" does not refer to what Christ or John literally ate but refers to the type of life style each man lived. "For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil" does NOT literally mean John ate or drank nothing but fiduratively describes his reclusive life style while Jesus was a public person who went among people is figuratively expressed by saying He "came eating and drinking". Jesus being called a 'drunkard" does not prove He socially drank no more than His being called a glutton" proves He committed gluttony. Jesus went among sinners to save them, He did not participate with sinners in their sins. Jesus enemies falsely accused Him of participating in those sins. There accusations do not prove Jesus drank no more than they proves John had a demon.


---if the 'wine' Paul refers to was alcholic, it was common practice to mix wine with water for the alcholic content would kill bacteria in the water that caused the ailment. At the same time water down the wine taking away its intoxicating effect. Using alcohol for antiseptic/medicinal reasons does not apporve of recreational drinking no more than telling a person to take two aspirins approves the recreational use of drugs as cocaine, heroin, etc. The context inicates Timothy normally drank water abstaining from drinking fermented wine. Again, Paul shows Eph 5:18 drunkenness is a process, matter of degree condemning the start of the process, the first drink. Hence Paul would not contradcit himself or instruct Timothy to sin.

If they permit drinking, but not drunkenness, then it sounds like there is something between one drink with food and drunkenness. They apparently knew what that looked like because they drank wine regularly. It was a source of nutrition in a time when that was hard to come by. And it was one of the few readily available somewhat sweet tasting things they had to enjoy. Hence they used it at special occasions with food, while rejoicing.

Eph 5:18 again Paul shows drunkeness is a process with the beginnig point, inception point being the first drink in the process. Thye first drink then is a sinful as the 2nd, 3rd or 7th. No verse I know of says gluttony is a process that begins with the first bite. Therefore drinking and eating is an apples to oranges comparison.
No verse says 1st Christans had 'drinking parties" to celecrate various occasions. Peter condemend such drinking parties saying they were part of the old, sinful man. 1 Peter 4:3.

You just bolded EXCESS of wine. I think I will let that speak for itself.

Of course partying with lots of alcohol is bad.




Modern versions render it drinking parties for a reason.

1Pe 4:3 For the time that is past suffices for doing what the Gentiles want to do, living in sensuality, passions, drunkenness, orgies, drinking parties, and lawless idolatry.

Strongs:
πότος
From the alternate of G4095; a drinking bout or carousal

Vincet's Word studies:
Banquetings (πότοις)
Lit., drinking-bouts. Rev., carousings.

Cambridge Bible:
banquetings] Literally, drinking-parties. The word went naturally as in other Greek writers with “revellings.”

Peter is CONDEMING drinking in varying degrees from excess, to moderate (revellings) to small amount (banquets) 1 Peter 4:3.

But if you want an approved banquet PROVIDED by the Lord:

Isa 25:6 On this mountain the LORD of hosts will make for all peoples a feast of rich food, a feast of well-aged wine, of rich food full of marrow, of aged wine well refined.

You ASSUME 'wine" here refers to fermented wine.
Does "wine on the lees" support the use of alcohol?


Proverbs 23:29-35 would God serve something in his kingdom that he told you not to even look at? No. Proverbs 20:1 would God serve something at his feast that is a mocker or that is raging? No!

The word sober is used for watchfulness in general. The whole text makes that plain:

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

Be sober (physically abstient) be vigilent (mentally laert, watchful). Peter is NOT saying be mentally laert, be mentally alert because your adversary the devil walketh about.

And compare:

2Ti 4:5 But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.

2Ti 4:5 σὺ δὲ νῆφε ἐν πᾶσι, κακοπάθησον, ἔργον ποίησον εὐαγγελιστοῦ, τὴν διακονίαν σου πληροφόρησον.

And in case you think Paul is saying no wine:

1Ti_5:23 (No longer drink only water, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments.)

Again, the Bible does not contradict itself. Drinking drunkeness is condemned Eph 2:18, 1 Pet 3:4 therefore Paul is not advocating recreational drinking.

Because there is a difference between drinking with food over time, infrequently, and without excess (as the Bible texts describe), and drinking at bars where people are often drinking more than a little, regardless of food, in a setting where people could be operating vehicles afterwards.



Seeing as how I have argued against people starting to drink in the thread, quoted statistics on alcohol use in rapes, mentioned my experience in auto liability work where alcohol is all too frequently responsible, mentioned liver damage etc, I think I have made clear my position that alcohol is dangerous.

I said I would vote no. And I have done so on such questions. So what other people decide based on their values is not something I have to answer for.

I have outlined what the Bible texts describe. They at times drank while eating, over time, as part of a celebration.

The Bible warns against the deceptiveness of alcohol and drunkenness. It forbids drunkenness. It does not forbid any alcohol. So if someone is already drinking occasionally, but not getting drunk, I will not forbid it. Because the Scriptures didn't forbid it.

Eph 5:18 Paul already shows drunkenness is a process, (inceptive verb), thereby making the beginning point, inception point, the first drink sinful. Peter condemned drinking in varying degrees 1 Peter 4:3.
You continue to overlook these to verse while trying to dig thru the BIble to find verse that you think condone drinking while contradicting Paul and Peter.
You were not able to argue around the fact that it was SINFUL for all those who voted to approve of serving mixed drinks showing that they APPROVED of the consequences of deaths caused by drunk driving, domestic violence and other attrocities from alcohol. One cannot argue for the approval of social drinking without approving of the consequences brought about by the consumption of alcohol. The two cannot be separated.

MADD (mother's against drunk drivers) should in reality change their name to MAD (mother's against drinking) for drunk driving (along with domestic abuse, etc) will not stop as long as their is alcohol being consumed.

 

[ChetSinger]

"This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him."

---The purpose of Jesus performing miracles was to manifest His glory and enduce a belief in Him neither of which could be accomplished by causing/contributing to the drunkenness of others.

---"IF" Jesus supplied fermented, alcoholic wine to those already drunken, then there would be nothing wrong with the production, selling, serving, giving away of alcholic beverages. The implcation is the acceptable consequences of people being killed by drunk drivers, domestic violence/abuse, etc by those who consume alcholic beverages. Jesus would never engage in such nor accept such consequences. Jesus would not condone social drinking in Jn 2 only later to condemn it Eph 5:18; 1 Peter 4:3, Galatians 5:21; Proverbs 20:1; etc.

--The word 'wine' a used in the KJV is a generic word for grape juice, it may or may not be fermented (Isaiah 65:8; Isaiah 16:10; Joel 2:24 - grape juice is called 'wine'). "Wine" therefore does not always refer to an intoxcating drink. It is being ASSUMED Jesus made an intoxicant. What Jesus made is called "good wine".
"Historical writings provide evidence that the best wine of biblical days was nonalcoholic. Pliny the Younger said, “The most useful wine has all its force or strength broken by the filter.” Plutarch said, “Wine is rendered feeble in strength when it is frequently filtered. The strength or spirit thus being excluded, the wine neither inflames the brain nor infests the mind and passions, and is much more pleasant to drink."
Did Jesus Turn Water Into Alcoholic Wine? - Articles ‹ University church of Christ, Auburn, AL

“We should not be deceived by the phrase “good wine.” We often use the phrase to denote that it is good in proportion to its strength and its power to intoxicate; but no such sense is to be attached to the word here. Pliny, Plutarch, and Horace describe wine as good, or mention that as the best wine, which was harmless or innocent–poculo vini innocentis. The most useful wine — utilissimum vinum— was that which had little strength; and the most wholesome wine– saluberrimum vinum— was that which had not been adulterated by “the addition of anything to the must or juice.” Pliny expressly says that a “good wine” was one that was destitute of spirit (lib. iv. c. 13). It should not be assumed, therefore, that the “good wine” was stronger than the other: it is rather to be presumed that it was milder. The wine referred to here was doubtless such as was commonly drunk in Palestine. That was the pure juice of the grape. It was not brandied wine, nor drugged wine, nor wine compounded of various substances, such as we drink in this land. The common wine drunk in Palestine was that which was the simple juice of the grape. We use the word wine now to denote the kind of liquid which passes under that name in this country–always containing a considerable portion of alcohol –not only the alcohol produced by fermentation, but alcohol added to keep it or make it stronger. But we have no right to take that sense of the word, and go with it to the interpretation of the Scriptures. We should endeavor to place ourselves in the exact circumstances of those times, ascertain precisely what idea the word would convey to those who used it then, and apply that sense to the word in the interpretation of the Bible; and there is not the slightest evidence that the word so used would have conveyed any idea but that of the pure juice of the grape, nor the slightest circumstance mentioned in this account that would not be fully met by such a supposition." Albert Barnes Comm. on the Bible.

Thanks for the reply. I've never heard Pliny brought into this subject so it was something new to me. And it prodded me to do some further investigation into John 2.

I've learned I don't have to go as far as Pliny to figure out what the "good wine" was: the words of the steward of the feast are enough to indicate that it contained alcohol.

Here's why. When he said: "Everyone serves the good wine first, and when people have drunk freely, then the poor wine" the phrase "drunk freely" literally means to be made drunk. And that requires alcohol.

The word is Strong's G3184. It also appears in the following verses (ESV):

Mt 24:49 - "...and begins to beat his fellow servants and eats and drinks with drunkards..."​

Acts 2:15 - "For these people are not drunk, as you suppose, since it is only the third hour of the day."​

1 Cor 11:21 - "For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk."​

Rev 17:2 - "...with whom the kings of the earth have committed sexual immorality, and with the wine of whose sexual immorality the dwellers on earth have become drunk."​

Rev 17:6 - "And I saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the saints, the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. When I saw her, I marveled greatly."​

So if I'm using scripture to understand scripture, the steward's choice of Strong's G3184 tells me that the "good wine" he was referring to would make people drunk.

And in the context of a wedding party it makes perfect sense: serve the good wine first, when the guests will appreciate the expense, and then the poor wine after they're plastered and can't tell the difference. At this particular party the hosts appear to have been poor and couldn't afford any good wine at all.

I don't see Jesus being irresponsible: the occasion was a wedding party, a special event, likely a multi-day family feast and celebration. And there were no cars back then to hit people with. They walked home; and if they couldn't I suppose their relations would have them carried.

Thank you for prodding me to look into this. Much appreciated.

 

[RBPerry]

"This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him."

---The purpose of Jesus performing miracles was to manifest His glory and enduce a belief in Him neither of which could be accomplished by causing/contributing to the drunkenness of others.

---"IF" Jesus supplied fermented, alcoholic wine to those already drunken, then there would be nothing wrong with the production, selling, serving, giving away of alcholic beverages. The implcation is the acceptable consequences of people being killed by drunk drivers, domestic violence/abuse, etc by those who consume alcholic beverages. Jesus would never engage in such nor accept such consequences. Jesus would not condone social drinking in Jn 2 only later to condemn it Eph 5:18; 1 Peter 4:3, Galatians 5:21; Proverbs 20:1; etc.

--The word 'wine' a used in the KJV is a generic word for grape juice, it may or may not be fermented (Isaiah 65:8; Isaiah 16:10; Joel 2:24 - grape juice is called 'wine'). "Wine" therefore does not always refer to an intoxcating drink. It is being ASSUMED Jesus made an intoxicant. What Jesus made is called "good wine".
"Historical writings provide evidence that the best wine of biblical days was nonalcoholic. Pliny the Younger said, “The most useful wine has all its force or strength broken by the filter.” Plutarch said, “Wine is rendered feeble in strength when it is frequently filtered. The strength or spirit thus being excluded, the wine neither inflames the brain nor infests the mind and passions, and is much more pleasant to drink."
Did Jesus Turn Water Into Alcoholic Wine? - Articles ‹ University church of Christ, Auburn, AL

“We should not be deceived by the phrase “good wine.” We often use the phrase to denote that it is good in proportion to its strength and its power to intoxicate; but no such sense is to be attached to the word here. Pliny, Plutarch, and Horace describe wine as good, or mention that as the best wine, which was harmless or innocent–poculo vini innocentis. The most useful wine — utilissimum vinum— was that which had little strength; and the most wholesome wine– saluberrimum vinum— was that which had not been adulterated by “the addition of anything to the must or juice.” Pliny expressly says that a “good wine” was one that was destitute of spirit (lib. iv. c. 13). It should not be assumed, therefore, that the “good wine” was stronger than the other: it is rather to be presumed that it was milder. The wine referred to here was doubtless such as was commonly drunk in Palestine. That was the pure juice of the grape. It was not brandied wine, nor drugged wine, nor wine compounded of various substances, such as we drink in this land. The common wine drunk in Palestine was that which was the simple juice of the grape. We use the word wine now to denote the kind of liquid which passes under that name in this country–always containing a considerable portion of alcohol –not only the alcohol produced by fermentation, but alcohol added to keep it or make it stronger. But we have no right to take that sense of the word, and go with it to the interpretation of the Scriptures. We should endeavor to place ourselves in the exact circumstances of those times, ascertain precisely what idea the word would convey to those who used it then, and apply that sense to the word in the interpretation of the Bible; and there is not the slightest evidence that the word so used would have conveyed any idea but that of the pure juice of the grape, nor the slightest circumstance mentioned in this account that would not be fully met by such a supposition." Albert Barnes Comm. on the Bible.

This is almost funny and I have heard it over and over. First of all, look up the word for wine in the Geek, and look up the word for grape and juice in the Greek, and you will see they are two different words.
Most realize that Jesus probably spoke Aramaic, however the Hebrew just wasn't used much and many Jews no longer even understood Hebrew. Greek became the prominent language and so the New testament was translated into Greek around 200 AD. That is why most reference the Greek language and not Hebrew or Aramaic. Actually very little was written in Aramaic, I think it was Danial and Ezra or parts of each.

You will find that there is a distinct difference between wine and grape juice, the second being two word in the Greek. When it was said that the wine that Jesus made was a better wine, it most likely it speaking of the taste because the alcohol content normally can't be detected in most wines because it normally is about 12% on average.

To me someone claiming wine is unfermented is just foolishness, ask any winemaker. There is a science to making good wine.

I get a kick out of your references for your arguments, such as Peter, he was talking about people getting drunk and acting out. This is much different than someone having a glass of wine with dinner, or a cold beer on a hot day.

You don't want to drink wine, eat meat, or whatever, just don't attempt to make it a sin, it isn't, and most people in the main orthodox churches understand that.

 

[RBPerry]

Just another thought, drinking wine, beer, whiskey, scotch is not a sin, so Jesus wasn't sinning by creating fermented wine. What you do not realize with wine, is no additional alcohol is added to quality wines. The alcohol is produced by the fermentation process. That is why you don't put new wine into old wineskin, the wineskin will burst as it ferments, better known as common sense.
Also drinking alcohol does not cause my brother to stumble. Each adult is responsible for themselves and their actions. That's why the devil made me do it just doesn't work. 1 Cor 10:13 is very clear on that. Don't know what it says, look it up. No where does it say you can blame your brother for your sin.

 

[tall73]

This is almost funny and I have heard it over and over. First of all, look up the word for wine in the Geek, and look up the word for grape and juice in the Greek, and you will see they are two different words.
Most realize that Jesus probably spoke Aramaic, however the Hebrew just wasn't used much and many Jews no longer even understood Hebrew. Greek became the prominent language and so the New testament was translated into Greek around 200 AD. That is why most reference the Greek language and not Hebrew or Aramaic. Actually very little was written in Aramaic, I think it was Danial and Ezra or parts of each.

You will find that there is a distinct difference between wine and grape juice, the second being two word in the Greek.

To illustrate the point:

Hebrew:

Num 6:3 he shall separate himself from wine (yayin) and strong drink (shekar). He shall drink no vinegar made from wine or strong drink and shall not drink any juice (mishrah) of grapes or eat grapes, fresh or dried.

Greek:

Num 6:3 he shall purely abstain from wine (oinos) and strong drink(sikera); and he shall drink no vinegar of wine or vinegar of strong drink; and whatever is made of the grape recently (staphule prosphatos) he shall not drink; neither shall he eat fresh grapes or raisins


Wine and strong drink are distinguished from the juice of grapes.

 

[RBPerry]

Well, that's why I'm not a Nazarene. Now lets look at the entire passage and stop taking things out of context.

Numbers 6:1-4 (NIV)
1 The LORD said to Moses,
2 "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'If a man or woman wants to make a special vow, a vow of separation to the LORD as a Nazirite,
3 he must abstain from wine and other fermented drink and must not drink vinegar made from wine or from other fermented drink. He must not drink grape juice or eat grapes or raisins.
4 As long as he is a Nazirite, he must not eat anything that comes from the grapevine, not even the seeds or skins.

I have no intention of being a Nazirite. Can't you do better than that, come on I don't remember Loma Linda using that one, they had plenty of other miss quotes, but not that bad. notice they even refer to wine as fermented, how about that.

By the time Christ came most of the Jews were speaking Aramaic, some didn't even know the Hebrew language.

 

[tall73]

Well, that's why I'm not a Nazarene. Now lets look at the entire passage and stop taking things out of context.

Numbers 6:1-4 (NIV)
1 The LORD said to Moses,
2 "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'If a man or woman wants to make a special vow, a vow of separation to the LORD as a Nazirite,
3 he must abstain from wine and other fermented drink and must not drink vinegar made from wine or from other fermented drink. He must not drink grape juice or eat grapes or raisins.
4 As long as he is a Nazirite, he must not eat anything that comes from the grapevine, not even the seeds or skins.

I have no intention of being a Nazirite. Can't you do better than that, come on I don't remember Loma Linda using that one, they had plenty of other miss quotes, but not that bad. notice they even refer to wine as fermented, how about that.

By the time Christ came most of the Jews were speaking Aramaic, some didn't even know the Hebrew language.

I think you missed the point. I was showing the different words for fermented and unfermented in both languages--ie, showing your point that they are different words.

And even the Nazirite went back to drinking wine and strong drink after the oath was completed.

 

[tall73]

--Is is ASSUMED the wine Jesus made was alcoholic. Jeus would not violate the OT or His own NT is causing others to sin.

It sounds like it is assumed by you it wasn't. Your rule seems to be any negative reference it is alcohol, and any positive it is grape juice. How did all the Scriptures referencing drunkenness from alcohol happen if they were drinking grape juice?

But here is an example that shows the problem with your argument. The Nazirite vow spells out all the things the Nazirite separates from during the vow, in the Hebrew, and Greek from the LXX:

Hebrew:

Num 6:3 he shall separate himself from wine (yayin) and strong drink (shekar). He shall drink no vinegar made from wine or strong drink and shall not drink any juice (mishrah) of grapes or eat grapes, fresh or dried.

Greek:

Num 6:3 he shall purely abstain from wine (oinos) and strong drink(sikera); and he shall drink no vinegar of wine or vinegar of strong drink; and whatever is made of the grape recently (staphule prosphatos) he shall not drink; neither shall he eat fresh grapes or raisins

Wine and strong drink are listed, but then later new grape juice is listed.
And then when the vow was over they could go back to consuming them all, and drinking wine.

--the phrase "eating and drinking" does not refer to what Christ or John literally ate but refers to the type of life style each man lived. "For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil" does NOT literally mean John ate or drank nothing but fiduratively describes his reclusive life style while Jesus was a public person who went among people is figuratively expressed by saying He "came eating and drinking".

It is actually saying he didn't drink:

Luk 1:15 for he will be great before the Lord. And he must not drink wine or strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb.

Jesus being called a 'drunkard" does not prove He socially drank no more than His being called a glutton" proves He committed gluttony. Jesus went among sinners to save them, He did not participate with sinners in their sins.

He drank. And that is why they called Him a wine-bibber. John didn't drink, but Jesus did. And I doubt the tax collectors are serving grape juice.

Jesus enemies falsely accused Him of participating in those sins. There accusations do not prove Jesus drank no more than they proves John had a demon.

Jesus was the one who said John didn't drink, and He did:

Mat 11:18 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon.’
Mat 11:19 The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ Yet wisdom is justified by her deeds.”

Jesus was not a glutton or drunkard, and John did not have a demon. But John did not drink, and Jesus did, with the tax collectors, because He came to seek and save the lost.

---if the 'wine' Paul refers to was alcholic, it was common practice to mix wine with water for the alcholic content would kill bacteria in the water that caused the ailment. At the same time water down the wine taking away its intoxicating effect.

Yes, and they still do so today in some places. Which is the point. They were not drinking to get drunk. And some people still do not.

Using alcohol for antiseptic/medicinal reasons does not apporve of recreational drinking no more than telling a person to take two aspirins approves the recreational use of drugs as cocaine, heroin, etc. The context inicates Timothy normally drank water abstaining from drinking fermented wine. Again, Paul shows Eph 5:18 drunkenness is a process, matter of degree condemning the start of the process, the first drink. Hence Paul would not contradcit himself or instruct Timothy to sin.

He just told him to drink a little. So there goes that. You seem to have just refuted your first drink argument.

Eph 5:18 again Paul shows drunkeness is a process with the beginnig point, inception point being the first drink in the process. Thye first drink then is a sinful as the 2nd, 3rd or 7th. No verse I know of says gluttony is a process that begins with the first bite. Therefore drinking and eating is an apples to oranges comparison.

No, because it says intoxication is inceptive, and the text does not say the first drink. You just quoted Paul telling Timothy to drink.

No verse says 1st Christans had 'drinking parties" to celecrate various occasions. Peter condemend such drinking parties saying they were part of the old, sinful man. 1 Peter 4:3.

I just agreed he condemned drinking parties. And that is different than drink a little wine, which Paul told Timothy, and which we have been stating for some time--a little wine with food, often watered down. Becuse that is what they had for nutrition, and for a bit of taste. And they did not have refrigeration.

Peter is CONDEMING drinking in varying degrees from excess, to moderate (revellings) to small amount (banquets) 1 Peter 4:3.

Banquets wasn't a small amount, as I showed from the various references.

And Timothy was told to drink a small amount.

You ASSUME 'wine" here refers to fermented wine.
Does "wine on the lees" support the use of alcohol?

There is no reason to rest "grape juice" on its lees. It is being left that way for the usual reason.

Now your source discusses filtering, which makes it less strong. And it references what happens when it rests too long. But the resting is showing it is aged.

Just as these are also referring to fermentation:

Job 32:6 And Elihu the son of Barachel the Buzite answered and said: “I am young in years, and you are aged; therefore I was timid and afraid to declare my opinion to you.
Job 32:7 I said, ‘Let days speak, and many years teach wisdom.’
Job 32:8 But it is the spirit in man, the breath of the Almighty, that makes him understand.
Job 32:9 It is not the old who are wise, nor the aged who understand what is right.
Job 32:10 Therefore I say, ‘Listen to me; let me also declare my opinion.’
Job 32:11 “Behold, I waited for your words, I listened for your wise sayings, while you searched out what to say.
Job 32:12 I gave you my attention, and, behold, there was none among you who refuted Job or who answered his words.

Job 32:17 I also will answer with my share; I also will declare my opinion.
Job 32:18 For I am full of words; the spirit within me constrains me.
Job 32:19 Behold, my belly is like wine that has no vent; like new wineskins ready to burst.
Job 32:20 I must speak, that I may find relief; I must open my lips and answer.

Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
Like bottles of new wine, which has to undergo the action of fermentation

The gasses released cause expansion of the skin to nearly the breaking point. We see this in the parable of Jesus about new wine in new wine skins. If you used a wineskin that had already expanded it was old and brittle and could not expand again. It therefore would burst.

Mat 9:17 Neither is new wine put into old wineskins. If it is, the skins burst and the wine is spilled and the skins are destroyed. But new wine is put into fresh wineskins, and so both are preserved.

Proverbs 23:29-35 would God serve something in his kingdom that he told you not to even look at? No. Proverbs 20:1 would God serve something at his feast that is a mocker or that is raging? No!

He is warning against the deceptive nature of it so that you do not consume too much. There would be no reason to give such warnings if there was only grape juice in Israel.

You were not able to argue around the fact that it was SINFUL for all those who voted to approve of serving mixed drinks showing that they APPROVED of the consequences of deaths caused by drunk driving, domestic violence and other attrocities from alcohol. One cannot argue for the approval of social drinking without approving of the consequences brought about by the consumption of alcohol. The two cannot be separated.

You have poor reading comprehension. I said I wouldn't vote for it. And I said I don't answer for people who vote differently than me.

And I have not bee arguing for the approval of social drinking. We have stated that some do the same thing Paul told Timothy to do and it is not condemned.

 

[RBPerry]

I think you missed the point. I was showing the different words for fermented and unfermented in both languages--ie, showing your point that they are different words.

And even the Nazirite went back to drinking wine and strong drink after the oath was completed.

Sorry, yes I did miss your point, guess that's what old age does to a person, and I had no wine when I responded to your post.

 

[tall73]

Sorry, yes I did miss your point, guess that's what old age does to a person, and I had no wine when I responded to your post.

It happens to us all sometimes, even if we are not so old yet!

 

[Butterball1]

It sounds like it is assumed by you it wasn't. Your rule seems to be any negative reference it is alcohol, and any positive it is grape juice. How did all the Scriptures referencing drunkenness from alcohol happen if they were drinking grape juice?

But here is an example that shows the problem with your argument. The Nazirite vow spells out all the things the Nazirite separates from during the vow, in the Hebrew, and Greek from the LXX:

Hebrew:

Num 6:3 he shall separate himself from wine (yayin) and strong drink (shekar). He shall drink no vinegar made from wine or strong drink and shall not drink any juice (mishrah) of grapes or eat grapes, fresh or dried.

Greek:

Num 6:3 he shall purely abstain from wine (oinos) and strong drink(sikera); and he shall drink no vinegar of wine or vinegar of strong drink; and whatever is made of the grape recently (staphule prosphatos) he shall not drink; neither shall he eat fresh grapes or raisins

Wine and strong drink are listed, but then later new grape juice is listed.
And then when the vow was over they could go back to consuming them all, and drinking wine.



It is actually saying he didn't drink:

Luk 1:15 for he will be great before the Lord. And he must not drink wine or strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb.



He drank. And that is why they called Him a wine-bibber. John didn't drink, but Jesus did. And I doubt the tax collectors are serving grape juice.



Jesus was the one who said John didn't drink, and He did:

Mat 11:18 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon.’
Mat 11:19 The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ Yet wisdom is justified by her deeds.”

Jesus was not a glutton or drunkard, and John did not have a demon. But John did not drink, and Jesus did, with the tax collectors, because He came to seek and save the lost.



Yes, and they still do so today in some places. Which is the point. They were not drinking to get drunk. And some people still do not.



He just told him to drink a little. So there goes that. You seem to have just refuted your first drink argument.



No, because it says intoxication is inceptive, and the text does not say the first drink. You just quoted Paul telling Timothy to drink.



I just agreed he condemned drinking parties. And that is different than drink a little wine, which Paul told Timothy, and which we have been stating for some time--a little wine with food, often watered down. Becuse that is what they had for nutrition, and for a bit of taste. And they did not have refrigeration.


Banquets wasn't a small amount, as I showed from the various references.

And Timothy was told to drink a small amount.



There is no reason to rest "grape juice" on its lees. It is being left that way for the usual reason.

Now your source discusses filtering, which makes it less strong. And it references what happens when it rests too long. But the resting is showing it is aged.

Just as these are also referring to fermentation:

Job 32:6 And Elihu the son of Barachel the Buzite answered and said: “I am young in years, and you are aged; therefore I was timid and afraid to declare my opinion to you.
Job 32:7 I said, ‘Let days speak, and many years teach wisdom.’
Job 32:8 But it is the spirit in man, the breath of the Almighty, that makes him understand.
Job 32:9 It is not the old who are wise, nor the aged who understand what is right.
Job 32:10 Therefore I say, ‘Listen to me; let me also declare my opinion.’
Job 32:11 “Behold, I waited for your words, I listened for your wise sayings, while you searched out what to say.
Job 32:12 I gave you my attention, and, behold, there was none among you who refuted Job or who answered his words.

Job 32:17 I also will answer with my share; I also will declare my opinion.
Job 32:18 For I am full of words; the spirit within me constrains me.
Job 32:19 Behold, my belly is like wine that has no vent; like new wineskins ready to burst.
Job 32:20 I must speak, that I may find relief; I must open my lips and answer.

Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
Like bottles of new wine, which has to undergo the action of fermentation

The gasses released cause expansion of the skin to nearly the breaking point. We see this in the parable of Jesus about new wine in new wine skins. If you used a wineskin that had already expanded it was old and brittle and could not expand again. It therefore would burst.

Mat 9:17 Neither is new wine put into old wineskins. If it is, the skins burst and the wine is spilled and the skins are destroyed. But new wine is put into fresh wineskins, and so both are preserved.



He is warning against the deceptive nature of it so that you do not consume too much. There would be no reason to give such warnings if there was only grape juice in Israel.




You have poor reading comprehension. I said I wouldn't vote for it. And I said I don't answer for people who vote differently than me.

And I have not bee arguing for the approval of social drinking. We have stated that some do the same thing Paul told Timothy to do and it is not condemned.

Again;
1) Ephesians 5:18 Paul shows drunkeness is a PROCESS therefore the first drink is sinful for it is that start of the process and therefore it is as much of the process as the subsequent drinks.

2) 1 Peter 4:3 Peter condemns drinking in varying degrees from excessive amounts to moderate to small amounts.

THe above two verses state facts kill your argument. Verses do not contradict verses in the Bible. Therefore the vents at Cana do not contradict the above verses, Paul giving Timothy to no longer drink water but wine does not contradict the above verses. Jesus called a winebibber does not prove He drank for if He did He was a hypocrit violating his own NT.

You are not able to get around Eph 5:18 and 1 Peter 4:3 that condemn social drinking point blank so you are "staining at a gnat" with other verses to try and find justification from those verses when there is none creating a contradiction among verses.

If Jesus being called a winebibber proves He drank alcoholic drinks then His being called a glutton equally proves He engaged in gluttony. If one is true so is the other, you cannot just cherry pick out what you like and ignore the rest. Jesus' enemies also said He had a demon (John 7:20) so that must be true also???? They called Jesus a sinner (John 9:24) that must prove they saw Him sin on occasion, right?
Yet the truth is all these accuasations (winebibber, glutton, having a demon, a sinner) were all EQUALLY false. You choose to believe the false accusations in a poor attempt to justify social drinking??


Paul did not tell Timothy to engage in social drinking for that is an obvious contradiction to what Paul said in Ephesians 5:18 and what Peter says in 1 Peter 4:3. The context shows Timothy had been abstaining from from drinking fermented wine (as the NT teaches Christians to abstain) and had to receive medicinal/disinfectant instructions from Paul. There is NOTHING here that remotely teaches social drinking as being acceptable. Paul is NOT telling Timothy to quit drinking water altogether and start drinking fermented wine but to use a "little" wine mixed with water. "The sentence is elliptical, i.e., certain words must be mentally supplied in order to complete the thought. The sense thus should be: “Be no longer a drinker of water only, but also take a little wine?” (see John 6:27; cf.1 Corinthians 4:20 with 1 Thessalonians 1:5). The apostle is not instructing Timothy to abstain from water entirely; rather, for medicinal purposes the youth was enjoined to mix with his water a “little wine. This passage can hardly provide any comfort for those who desire to engage in the pleasurable consumption of beverage alcohol. Imbibers rarely drink just a “little,” nor do they dilute their wine with water. They are looking for the “glow,” the “buzz.” Furthermore, ancient wines were not nearly as potent as today’s fortified wines."
Did Paul Sanction Social Drinking?
Having clean drinking water where I live, then there is no reason to follow these instructions that were specifically given to Timothy.

My point was that it was sinful to vote for the measure. Those that did vote for it demonstrated to the world that their so called "right" to drink comes with acceptable consequences as deaths from drunk driving, domestic violence etc. Yet at the same time these same people go about pointing fingers at other people.

Isa 25:6 cannot and does not contradict Ephesians 5:18 or 1 Peter 4:3 that clearly condemn social drinking.
Some will say "but wait, it says God is going to serve wines on the lees, you do not get lees until after it ferments." That is actually not true, for one thing not all lees are dead yeast cells. Moreover, just because lees are present in the wine does not mean that the wine is fermented, for juice also has lees (see There’s no avoiding dealing with lees). As a matter of fact, you can actually get organic grape juice that has the lees settled on the bottom.
Moreover, the wines on the lees in Isaiah 25:6 was well refined. That means God had taken all the unwanted rubbish out. The wine God is going to serve is not like the mixed wine of Proverbs 23 (the mixed wine of Proverbs 23 is the wine that is mixed with the yeast that results in fermentation or ‘movement’ as the Bible describes it). Instead, God is going to serve the well refined wine that is full of flavour without the fermentation."
Does Isaiah 25:6 teach: God is going to serve alcohol at his feast - Cornerstone Baptist Church | Bible Believing Baptist Church | Missionary supporting

Thus the imagery presented in Isa 25:6 is as Jerusalem was "unfiltered" (Zeph 1:12) and was therefore unfit yet the "wine" is "well refined" and fit. "Unfiltered" conotates something bad yet this wine is filtered but the verse does not say if filtering took place before or after fementation. It is assumed ferementation had taken place.
"Do not look on the wine when it is red, when it sparkles in the cup . . ." (Proverbs 23:31).


Isaiah 25:6 “banquet of preserved things” in Young’s Literal Translation – No Drinking

 

[Butterball1]

This is almost funny and I have heard it over and over. First of all, look up the word for wine in the Geek, and look up the word for grape and juice in the Greek, and you will see they are two different words.
Most realize that Jesus probably spoke Aramaic, however the Hebrew just wasn't used much and many Jews no longer even understood Hebrew. Greek became the prominent language and so the New testament was translated into Greek around 200 AD. That is why most reference the Greek language and not Hebrew or Aramaic. Actually very little was written in Aramaic, I think it was Danial and Ezra or parts of each.

You will find that there is a distinct difference between wine and grape juice, the second being two word in the Greek. When it was said that the wine that Jesus made was a better wine, it most likely it speaking of the taste because the alcohol content normally can't be detected in most wines because it normally is about 12% on average.

To me someone claiming wine is unfermented is just foolishness, ask any winemaker. There is a science to making good wine.

I get a kick out of your references for your arguments, such as Peter, he was talking about people getting drunk and acting out. This is much different than someone having a glass of wine with dinner, or a cold beer on a hot day.

You don't want to drink wine, eat meat, or whatever, just don't attempt to make it a sin, it isn't, and most people in the main orthodox churches understand that.

The Englsih word "wine" as used in the KJV is a generic word for grape juice, it may or may not be fermented so it is an assumption to think "wine" always refers to fermented wine. I traced the English word wine from the the time of King James and all the way up to the 1900's it carried this meaning. One person online I found had a dictionary from 1950's frfining "wine" just that way, a generic word fro grape jucie, unfermented and fermented. Even the underlying Greek word onios refers to a sweet drink, unfemented or fermented.

If you do a study on the words Peter used, he is referring to the sinful life of the old man of sin referring to 3 varying degress of deinking from excess to moderate to small amounts (banquet). Paul also shows drunkenness is not a destination one SUBJECTIVELY, eventually reaches after having "x" number of drinks but a process with the inception point, beginnig point being the first drink, (drunkenness being an inceptive verb in the Greek). The process that leads one to sinning is just as sinful as the sin itself. The process that leads to adultery, the lust of the eyes, the lust in the heart is as sinful as the act of adultery itself. One can "claim" they are not SUBJECTIVELY drunk until they have "x" numbers of drinks. They can always claim they were never drunk for they can continue to change "x" to whatever number they desire. Yet God starts drunkeness with the frist drink.

 

[RBPerry]

Wine in the bible is not used in generic terms. Grapes is a different word "staphyle" bunch of grapes. Want a reality check, go to a Greek orthodox church and tell them that wine and grape juice are the same in the Greek, when they get done laughing at you, they will probably kick you out.

Drunkenness' is well defined in our society. The SDA as with a few other denominations started this non sense back during the third great awakening. After four years at Loma Linda I did gain a good education at the time, however they were preaching the same non sense back then.

Reality is, we need to look at our society today. Go to Napa valley and tell a wine maker grapes and wine are the same thing. Reality is the wine grapes are a much different grape than your table grapes. It's like Peter said at Pentecost when he was accused of being drunk. He said, it is 9 am, too early to be drunk.

Reality is wine in moderation is good for you, actually I can prove where alcohol is beneficial in moderation. Excessive in anything isn't good, and we all know that. The problem with the SDA is they attach sin to anything they believe people should abstain from, and that is just wrong.

In my freshman year at Loma Linda, I was a devout Adventist, when I graduated four years later I was almost an agnostic, why because when I asked the tough questions, I received a bunch of bull for an answer.