Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.
Guilty of what?If you are feeling guilt over biblical scripture being shared with you that is the Holy Spirit and not anything an SDA is saying.
Some of which may even have some bearing on the subject under discussion.Most of the SDA posts are filled with scripture quotes
Kind of like the post to which I'm responding, right?most of the responses we receive back is filled with personal opinions.
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.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.
I agree, we should observe the Sabbath simply because He asked. God bless.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 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.
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.)
tall73 said: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.
tall73 said: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.”
tall73 said: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.
tall73 said: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:
tall73 said: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.)
tall73 said: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.
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."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 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.
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.
--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.
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.
Banquets wasn't a small amount, as I showed from the various references.Peter is CONDEMING drinking in varying degrees from excess, to moderate (revellings) to small amount (banquets) 1 Peter 4:3.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?