- Sep 23, 2005
- 31,991
- 5,854
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
No, it is just what it says, prolonged intoxication.
You have based your argument throughout the thread on the verb being inceptive. And on this basis you formed your not even one drink theory.
However, it is inceptive of intoxicate, to prolong intoxication. That does not say one drink. But more to the point, you already totally surrendered that argument when you admitted that Timothy would drink a little.
1Ti_5:23 (No longer drink only water, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments.)
If one drink was prohibited, and to consider drinking was prohibited, then Paul wouldn't tell Timothy to drink. Because it would be better to have a stomach ailment than to commit sin and violate conscious.
But of course it was not prohibited to drink, but to be drunk.
I noted various resources showing the meaning of the KJV "banqueting" was in fact referring to a larger amount, and you just ignored it.
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.”
All of the listings he mentioned were of drinking to excess. And if he wanted to say no alcohol he could do that. He did not.
They do not at all, because those two verses address drinking to excess. And you already acknowledged Timothy drinking, so your one drink theory is now manifestly wrong.
The verses don't contradict because they all say a little wine is not the problem. But they don't say what you claimed. And Timothy drinking a little wine totally invalidates your one drink theory.
No, Him saying He drank proves He drank. And the problem is not violating His own Old or New Testament, because the consistent message is to avoid drunkenness.
I am presenting all the Bible verses on the subject that you don't want to deal with. I have addressed all of your arguments, and the message is consistently not to get drunk.
If you are not going to address the texts put to you then it is not "straining at gnats" but is instead presenting evidence you don't want to deal with.
Actually His own words prove He came eating and drinking. They tried to smear Him, but His own testimony about Himself is plain.
At this point I can no longer give you the benefit of the doubt of poor reading comprehension. I plainly stated Jesus indicated He drank.
And I have said repeatedly I do not approve of social drinking, but that the Bible does not condemn a little wine with food.
Your continuing to misrepresent my argument makes it clear that you cannot address the actual argument, so you have to change it.
A little wine is exactly what we were saying all along. But of course you smear that position and fail to address the arguments.
If one drink is wrong, then Timothy was wrong to take any. But it is not wrong. Drunkenness is wrong.
Who made the claim he was telling him to abstain from all water? But you acknowledge right here the whole argument when you indicate he used a "little" wine.
And those who judge others rarely concern themselves with judging accurately. Several people in the thread have stated they do drink just a little.
Sorry, but none of them contradict, because it is consuming to excess that is the prohibited activity.
First you argue it is "organic grape juice" with such material, but then you argue for filtering. But of course, they don't have refrigeration so that organic grape juice on the lees is going to ferment.
Once again you ignore the stated problem, of excess:
Pro 23:29 Who has woe? Who has sorrow? Who has strife? Who has complaining? Who has wounds without cause? Who has redness of eyes?
Pro 23:30 Those who tarry long over wine; those who go to try mixed wine.
Pro 23:31 Do not look at wine when it is red, when it sparkles in the cup and goes down smoothly.
The one described is tarrying long over wine. The issue is the contemplating of the appearance, going down smoothly, etc. is indicating drinking for the sake of it. Hence the LXX renders this simply: Be not drunk with wine μὴ μεθύσκεσθε οἴνῳ
But Jesus was not opposed to the process of fermentation. And it was such a familiar process that He used it in a parable, which you did not explain when it was mentioned to you previously.
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.
Note also the text makes plain how to designate when it is "new wine", ie. grape juice.
Nor did you address the evidence of the nazarite separating himself for a time from the various items which shows that it is not just talking about grape juice, because wine and strong drink are listed along with grape juice
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.
Nor did you address why the requirement for a deacon is not abstinence but rather to not be addicted to much wine.
1Ti 3:8 Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain.
Nor did you address why the priest is only prohibited when going into the sanctuary:
Lev 10:9 “Drink no wine or strong drink, you or your sons with you, when you go into the tent of meeting, lest you die. It shall be a statute forever throughout your generations.
The historical facts are obvious. They drank fermented wine, because they didn't have an easy way to preserve grape juice. But they were cautioned against drunkenness.
As to sober, again I noted the usage. It is not just talking about drinking. And it could not be since you already acknowledged Timothy wouldn't pass the test of no drinking once he took Paul's advice.
It is talking about being alert and prepared.
1Pe 5:8 Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:
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.
You did not address how "watch thou in all things" is the same word. It is talking about watching and being prepared, just as the other text was.
For your argument of total abstinence to hold up you must address every one of these texts, several of which you have not even tried. Because even one text indicating approval of drinking would sink your view.
But you actually already admitted one, in the case of Timothy.
You are free to hold whatever position you want about drinking. However, you are not at liberty to just re-invent the text. And that is clearly what you are doing when the texts talk about wine and strong drink and you acknowledge that is what they are in the passages which speak of drunkenness, and then deny it in any other passage, even when it is clear it cannot just be juice. In the listing in Numbers 6 it is clear that wine and strong drink are listed along with juice, so they are not the same.
And you are also not at liberty to just make up the position of other people so you can condemn them. No one in this thread has defended a lot of drinking, or social drinking. They have just indicated what the Bible says, that it is drunkenness, not all drinking, that is prohibited. A little wine with food is not sinful or Timothy would not have been told to do so.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
