Drinking a beer does not go against Bible

[Vicomte13]

Uh, Jesus followed Paul.

What? Jesus followed Paul? Not in any sense is that true. Paul was younger than Jesus. Paul never met Jesus during Jesus' life. Jesus blinded Paul on the road to Damascus and issued commands to Paul. Paul died following Jesus.

At no point did Jesus ever follow Paul. Paul became the faithful servant of Jesus and did what he believed Jesus wanted him to do.

I'm sure you're getting at something. I'm sure we're not going to see eye to eye. I agree that we should, us two, let it go, because we're going to generate heat and little light.

 

[ToBeLoved]

No. Paul is an Apostle of Christ, a great bishop, a great evangelist.

BUT nevertheless Paul wrote some things that are in opposition to what Christ said. The biggest one is the thought that we are judged by what we think as opposed to what we do. Jesus said repeatedly that men, including Christians, are judged by their deeds.

This difference of opinion is at the heart of a great deal of division among Christians.

Since Jesus was God and Paul was not, the answer is that we are judged by our deeds.

It isn't just Paul. James said that if you break one law, you've broken them all, an exaggeration that cannot be taken literally. For Jesus spoke in terms of greater and lesser commandments, and from Heaven Jesus gave a list of the offenses that will get one thrown into the Lake of Fire at final judgment. Only a few sins were on that list. So no, stealing bread is NOT the same thing as murder, and God himself said so. James said they are. James is wrong. We ignore James because Christ said otherwise, and Christ is God. James, like Paul, is not.

Jesus talks about the heart here with not even performing any deed.

Matthew 5:27-28
27 You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Vicomte13:

Sorry, the Word of God is my authority for many reasons.
If you do not believe all of the Scriptures are perfect and divinely inspired, we cannot have a discussion in regards to God's Word.
For people can just make up whatever they want to believe in rejection of God's Word.
But faith comes by hearing and hearing the Word of God.

...

 

[Vicomte13]

Jesus talks about the heart here with not even performing any deed.

Yes, but when he, resurrected, ascended and speaking with authority from the throne room of Heaven, tells John to take dictation concerning the Seven Churches, he repeatedly states that men - specifically Christians, for he is speaking of Seven Churches - are judged by their deeds.

He says no less when he speaks of the separation at judgment of those who gave the poor man water and a meal, versus those who did not. When he says that as you treated them, you treated me, depart into the fire, he is referring to their deeds.

Likewise when he says that the Father will treat sinners who are unforgiving just as the ruler treated the unforgiving servant in his parable, Jesus again refers to deeds.

"Let him among you who is without sin cast the first stone" links the deeds of the would-be executioners to the ability to carry out the execution of another.

"You will be measured by the measure by which you measured."

Jesus is really rather repetitive, and specific, and quite concrete in what he asks. The concrete does transcend deeds, and accounts forgiveness and compassion as deeds. But he does not replace the judgment for deeds with judgment for something else.

It's Paul, particularly, who seems to suggest that - that's the way he is taken anyway by millions of Christians who quote Romans for this - deeds don't matter, only faith, which is to say belief, does.

But Jesus says "What good does it do you to say you follow me if you don't do what I say [keep my commandments]?" And Jesus spends time on earth, and also in the throne room of heaven, talking about deeds.

Which means that we are judged for our deeds, like he said over and over.

It shouldn't be controversial, but it is controversial, because lots of Christians really do like what Paul seems to say better than that.

You can't really square that circle - there is real distance between what James said and what Jesus said, and between what Paul said on the matter of deeds and what Jesus said.

Given that Jesus is Lord, and God said "Follow HIM", and he said that HE is "the way", it shouldn't be a fraught topic, but it is, and one that goes straight to the marrow of how one is to read the Scriptures, and what the relative authority of conflicting Scriptures are, and who is master.

 

[Vicomte13]

Sorry, the Word of God is my authority for many reasons.
If you do not believe all of the Scriptures are perfect and divinely inspired, we cannot have a discussion in regards to God's Word.
For people can just make up whatever they want to believe in rejection of God's Word.
But faith comes by hearing and hearing the Word of God.

Yes it does. And what you do, when you face contradiction in Scriptures, such as the contradiction between James and Jesus, or Paul and Jesus, is that you lie. You prefer Paul, so you quote Paul and ignore Jesus. Then you say that Jesus follows Paul. You are not listening to God at all. You are following you but piously claiming to listen to God. You are picking what you prefer.

I, on the the other hand, read Scripture. I read what it SAYS. It SAYS JESUS is LORD. The Father says Follow HIM.
So, these contradictions are, in fact, real - they are visible. It's a lie to say they are not there. James says that all the laws of the same. Jesus rather repeatedly says they are not.

So they either ARE, or they are NOT.

YOU will prevaricate and say there is no contradiction, and I will reject YOU, because you are lying. There IS a contradiction, and it is as plain as the nose on your face. Anybody can see it. You CHOOSE not to see it, because you have built a false theology, equating the Bible, every word in it, to God. But GOD said follow JESUS, he did NOT say "Follow every word of Scripture."

Scripture tells us what Jesus said, and in it, when God speaks directly from Heaven, it SAYS SO. It says that GOD said, from the sky, to listen to Jesus and to follow Jesus. Jesus and Paul conflict. Jesus and James conflict. So, why exactly are YOU choosing - for that is what you are doing - to listen to Paul, or to James, instead of doing what GOD SAID TO DO in Scripture and listening to JESUS? Jesus said that HE is the way and the truth and the light.

He conflicts with James and Paul. The conflicts are somewhat important, because false Christian doctrines have spewed out of IGNORING GOD'S COMMANDMENT TO LISTEN TO JESUS, and instead placing Paul above Jesus, or James above Jesus, because the Christian theologian prefers what Paul has to say on a matter, or what James has to say.

But this is IGNORING THE BIBLE, because the BIBLE tells you to LISTEN TO JESUS, to FOLLOW JESUS. And JESUS says the same too, he says that HE is the way. HE is the gate. And he asks what good it does you to say you follow him if you don't do what he says.

So, you wave the book at me and pretend that I am some sort of apostate because I read it PROPERLY, and note that JESUS is Lord, not Paul. God said to listen to JESUS, not James.

Normally, there is no conflict, but where there IS conflict - and there IS conflict over the matter of all laws being equal - James says yes, John says no, and - most importantly - JESUS says no, so NO THEY ARE NOT - then, IF you listen to what GOD says DIRECTLY in Scripture, you listen to JESUS, and NOT James.

JESUS said "One does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds forth out of the mouth of God."

So, right THERE is your hermeneutic - the PROPER hermeneutic - for sorting out these contradictions. GOD said, from Heaven, to listen to JESUS, to follow JESUS. JESUS said "Follow me". And Jesus is also God, so the words that come out of the mouth of JESUS are the words by which one lives.

Paul and James contradict Jesus on the points I have mentioned. You turn the Bible into an idol - with every word having the same authority. But the BIBLE ITSELF tells you that's not true! The BIBLE tells you the words that come out of the mouth of God, and God is the Father, and Jesus - not James and not Paul. JESUS gave the answers to those questions.

Paul and James contradict him. You're not following God OR the Bible if you pretend that James and Paul have the same authority as Jesus, because both the Father and Jesus in the Bible - and Paul for that matter, if you pay attention to him - all tell you that JESUS is Lord.

I AM following the Bible, to the letter. The Bible TELLS you how to overcome the contradictions in the Bible: you listen to Jesus, and Jesus nullifies the stuff that contradicts him. So that is that.

You're not really listening to the Bible. You're ignoring the parts where God and Jesus assert THEIR authority, and tell you who to listen to, and following your own made-up doctrine that "every word" has the same authority, even though God IN the Bible says otherwise. And then you're elevating Paul over Jesus where you like what Paul said better.

That's not actually following the Bible, or respecting it. You're denying to God the Father and to Jesus the power to have TOLD YOU IN the Bible what parts are to be given the greatest authority.

I said above that we cannot possibly come to agreement. And that is true. You've decided to make it a matter of you following the Bible and me not. But actually, I follow the Father and the Lord in the Bible, and you're an idolator who has raised a false "every word" doctrine of your own belief and human design to overthrow the hierarchy of authority that God put INTO the words of the Bible.

So OF COURSE we cannot agree. You're going to dilute Jesus with Paul, where they contradict, because you like Paul better than Christ, and I'm never going to follow you down that slope.

The Scripture is precious, because it told you what God said. It is a confusing piece of work, with contradictions. God provided a direct set of rules to sort it. Follow those, and you listen to JESUS and the conflicts simply recede before superior authority.

Follow you, and we'll throw out Jesus to follow Paul, because you'll deny the obvious and say there's no conflict.
Well, there is. God knew that was coming, so he TOLD US how to face it: by following JESUS.

We will not agree.

Above, I agreed to disagree. But you decided to get sanctimonious with me, and I decided that no, I am not going to let idolatry get the last word this time. I follow the Bible: it says to follow Jesus. That means that Jesus trumps everything else in it, where they conflict. It's a lie to say that there are no conflicts.

But if one insists there aren't, then fine, as long as the result of the reasoning at the end of it all is EXACTLY WHAT JESUS SAID. And that's NOT where your reasoning comes out at all. Which means that you're wrong by definition. Because Jesus, and nobody else, is Lord. What he said always trumps. Always. Without exception.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Alright then.
May God bless you.


...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Anyways, getting back on the topic of alcohol:





"For in the end it bites like a poisonous snake; it stings like a viper."
(Proverbs 23:32 NLT).


...

 

[Wunderlust]

Yes, I am aware of that. It could be up to 70% in strength. But not all grapes are the same. Sometimes it takes longer, too. In either case, wine companies filter out the sediment and the skins and put the wine thru the second fermentation (with no air this time) to get rid of the last remaining sugars. This would create an even more stronger alcoholic drink.

No, secondary fermentation is done to mature the drink. There are very few sugars let over by that time. In primary and secondary fermentation of any drink, air is present, it's called CO2. I think what you mean is that no oxygen is present initially, as is done with primary fermentation. Oxygen is present at the beginning of fermentation, but it is quickly consumed and replaced by CO2. Alcohol is produced in the absence of oxygen.

Also, most wine companies add cultured yeast and other chemical ingredients, too.
This helps to control the wine they desire.

I'm quite aware of that since I make beer, wine and other things. It's also totally irrelevant.

In any event, this is all irrelevant because the Jews could have made freshly squeezed juice for that day's use (or they could have boiled it).

No, they could not.
I do not know if you aren't reading my posts or having a comprehension problem or do not get basic biology. Grapes were not available year around. They were only available for a short period around harvest in the fall.

Except for a small part of the year, only wine was available.

Jews could have gone to great lengths to boil part of the alcohol, but we know they did not. You can't say, for example, the Jewish people took grapes up to mountains and covered them with snow and make than an absolute historical statement simply because it was theoretically possible.

Saying that when it snowed in Israel, the Jews made snowmen because it was theoretically possible that did is an absurd and you surely have the reasoning skills to see the flaw in that.

Also, the fact that is no historical evidence that was a common practice. You are actually just making stuff up.

The dictionary says there are two kinds of wines. Fermented and unfermented. The wine Jesus made was unfermented because He does not create a process of death whereby an organism has fed upon the sugar of the grape (which is the life blood of the grape). The grape has to die in order for the yeast to partake of it's sugar. The wine represents Jesus's blood. It is pure and holy blood that is meant to wash away our sins. So the wine cannot represent something that is a process of death in any way shape or form (even if the sugar is not alive when it is within the grape). The sugar is the life blood of the grape.

What you said makes absolutely no sense. You said Jesus didn't make fermented wine because it represents death. Then you have decided to fine death as an [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] consuming sugars.

You are making absolute historic statements by totally arbitrary premises you have created.
Jesus can't make something that represents death - you just made that up
Yeasts consuming sugars represents death - you just made that up
Therefore, Jesus can't make wine - you've made that up by two made up premises.

Jesus made fish, which eat other things.
Jesus made bread, which was made with yeast (except when celebrating Passover)

So your totally made up standards to even apply to other miracles.

 

[Wunderlust]

Sure sounds peachy and nice. But your view of alcohol is from a worldly perspective, though. God's ways are higher than our ways. For I see another side of the story that folks like to sweep under the carpet.

More flawed reasoning. You are saying whatever views the majority of people hold, are automatically wrong.

It says alcohol is your friend.

No one thinks alcohol is their friend unless they are nuts.

However, what about all the deaths alcohol has caused?

Alcohol takes 3 times more lives than guns do.
Alcohol takes lives every several minutes.

So do cars, over eating, bad eating habits, lack of exercise and many other activities and lack thereof.

Fact is, drinking in moderation is not only not bad, but has proven health benefits.

Is that how a Christian who truly wants to follow Jesus should glorify Him?

I don't see how that's a problem.

Or should a Pastor have a bottle of beer or a glass of wine on his preaching stand?

It would be as inappropriate as having a bucket of chicken.

Should true believers indulge in a drug (yes it is a drug) that takes lives every day?

Are you talking about coffee?

Sure, you may have a liberty in Christ, but let not your good be evil spoken of.
It is not a social beverage.

Most people drink it socially.

it is a drug that takes lives every day.

Caffeine?

In fact, alcohol takes more lives than any other drug.

Actually it doesn't. Tobacco kills far more people. Over eating and poor eating is one of the biggest killers of western people today.

 

[Wunderlust]

Paul was referring to mixing wine with water. Also, Joseph had squeezed fresh grape juice into a cup for the Pharoah. So yes. People did drink fresh grape juice back in Bible times.

Again, false. Unless you happen to have access to grapes around harvest, the rest of the year you'd only have wine available.

But people see the word "wine" in the Bible and just assume it is alcohol because that is their own life experience talking.
That is their world.
But it is not the truth.
People justify what they do whether they have a Bible or not.

No, it's because it is a historical and biological fact that wine was fermented back then. We have explained this to you countless times and you continue to promote things that are simply not true by every measurable standard for a theological argument, no less.

Until the 19th century, all grape juice was fermented because they had no way of preventing that. In the 19th Century, it was discovered and practiced, that you could place grape juice in an air tight container, resistant to pressure and boil it. This practiced followed the discovery of micro-organisms and their role in spoilage and fermentation.

Also, alcohol is probably one the top number one killers here in America. It is not gluttony. it is alcohol. More people die from alcohol than from guns. People die from alcohol every several minutes.

Gluttony kills people too, in fact more people.
Again, you are saying historically and biblically inaccurate things and then making red herrings with emotional pleas like this one.

Just because you have an issue with alcohol does not make it okay to make things up and contradict history and the bible.

Alcohol is not a requirement for you to live.

Moderate amounts have proven to improve health and extend life.

It is not even a food that has any nutrional value.

Actually, it is. Drinks with alcohol contain calories and often probiotics and many nutrients.

Wine as also a source of vitamin c year round.

 

[Wunderlust]

Well, Deuteronomy 14:26 is actually talking about unfermented wine and strong fruit beverages (strong in fruit and not in alcohol). How so? Well, Deuteronomy 14:22-26 dealt with the tithe offerings to the Lord. These tithes were offerings unto God. And the daily offerings included meat and drink offerings. Leaven, which is a yeast, is forbidden in the daily meat offerings (Leviticus 2:11 KJV). In fact, Leviticus 2:11 specifically states, "ye shall burn no leaven... in any offering of the LORD made by fire." And the drink offerings most of the time were made by fire (Which included the daily offerings: (Exodus 29:41 KJV) (Numbers 28:7, 8) the First fruits Feast of Weeks: (Leviticus 23:18 KJV) and the Feast of Trumpets: (Numbers 29:6 KJV)).

Also, if you were to keep reading in Deuteronomy, it says,

"Ye have not eaten bread, neither have ye drunk wine or strong drink: that ye might know that I am the LORD your God" (Deuteronomy 29:6).

...

No, it's not. Unfermented wine did not exist unless you drank juice pressed straight from grapes during the brief period of year around harvest. For most of the year, and for most people all year, only wine was available.

Also, the Jews were not aware that yeast was in wine. That was not discovered until recently with the development of microscopes. For that reason, under Kosher law, wine was permitted. With the discovery of yeast in wine production, Rabbis determined that leaven refers to yeast found within grain products.

But good job on just totally making stuff up to fit your agenda. Don't let facts get in your way.

 

[Wunderlust]

Drink from the FRUIT of the vine. The FRUIT of the vine is grape juice. It is not the result of the process of fermentation from yeast eating the sugars of the grape.


...

As far as most people were concerned, wine was the fruit of the wine, since that's how grape juice arrived. Unless you went out during a certain time in fall, out to a vineyard, and got grapes and squeezed them into a cup... about the only thing available was wine.

 

[Wunderlust]

This is simply not true. Here are..


16) Romans 14:21
- Do not do anything (Including drinking intoxicating beverages) to make your brother to stumble.

17) 1 Timothy 3:2-3
- Bishops (elders) are to be temperate, sober, and not near any wine.

18) 1 Timothy 3:8
- Deacons are to be worthy of respect and not drinkers.

19) 1 Timothy 3:11
- Deacons’ wives are to be temperate and sober.

20) Titus 1:7-8
- A bishop is not to be given to wine.

21) Titus 2:2-3
- The older men and older women of the church are to be temperate and not addicted to wine.
Source:
75 Bible References on Drinking Alcohol

Again, more people completely removed from reality and context.
Until the 19th Century, communion was celebrated with wine. It was only after grape juice was invented that congregations began using grape juice.

These passages are about avoiding abuse of alcohol, not a prohibition against it. Which would be impossible since they celebrated communion which required wine.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Do you believe in Eternal Security?
How about Eternal Concious Torment?

I ask these questions because I believe it is why you also believe as you do in regards to alcohol.


...

 

[Wunderlust]

Uh, Jesus followed Paul. Anyways, not going to debate this with you (if you do not accept the entirety of the Bible as God's Word).


...

Jason, I think you may be very, very confused.

No one, anywhere, calls Jesus a follower of Paul.

Prior to the crucifixion of Jesus, Paul was called Saul and persecuted Christians. Only after the resurrection, on the road to Damascus, did Saul become a Christian. Pretty much every Christian everywhere believe that. That's what Acts says.

 

[Wunderlust]

Do you believe in Eternal Security?
How about Eternal Concious Torment?

I ask these questions because I believe it is why you also believe as you do in regards to alcohol.


...

You need to address posts like these to specific people. Your question is also quite off topic.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Jason, I think you may be very, very confused.

No one, anywhere, calls Jesus a follower of Paul.

It's called a writing error. I had the words switched around. But I edited my post just now and I fixed or corrected the error. Paul followed Jesus is what I meant to say.


...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

You need to address posts like these to specific people. Your question is also quite off topic.

If the post was interrupted by another person, I would put your name "Wunderlust" in there. But most of the time, people can figure out that one is replying to another on a forum if the post follows after what they had written. I have been talking on forums for a long time now and this is a very common thing to do.

As for the questions being off topic: Well, I believe they will help me to understand why you believe as you do in regards to alcohol.
My guess is you believe in Eternal Security and Eternal Concious Torment.
These are doctrines that one has to turn their moral compass off in order to believe them. It is no different than believing Jesus publically creating an intoxicating beverage to be written down for the world to hear about (that could potentially make the Christian alcoholic to stumble). It's a moral issue; And God is always on the side of what is good and moral.

For God is good.


...

 

[Wunderlust]

If the post was interrupted by another person, I would put your name "Wunderlust" in there. But most of the time, people can figure out that one is replying to another on a forum if the post follows after what they had written. I have been talking on forums for a long time now and this is a very common thing to do.

As for the questions being off topic: Well, I believe they will help me to understand why you believe as you do in regards to alcohol.
My guess is you believe in Eternal Security and Eternal Concious Torment.
These are doctrines that one has to turn their moral compass off in order to believe them.
It is no different than believing Jesus publically creating an intoxicating beverage to be written down for the world to hear about (that could potentially make the believing alcoholic to stumble).


...

Jason, if you wish to inquire about a person's beliefs you need to do that privately or by creating a separate topic. Everything in this topic deals with historical and medical facts. You have presented a lot of bad information.

You have been backed into a corner. Instead of addressing the posts showing your error, you are now attempting to derail your own topic. I am not a fool, Jason. I am quite aware that your goal is to attempt to either derail this topic and avoid defending your own arguments of factual issues.

It is painfully obvious that your goal at this point is to ridiculously invalidate arguments of historical fact by saying they come from an erroneous belief system. Or perhaps just a derail in general to avoid addressing my previous posts.

Address my points and stay on topic. What my beliefs are has no bearing on the fact wine was fermented.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Jason, if you wish to inquire about a person's beliefs you need to do that privately or by creating a separate topic. Everything in this topic deals with historical and medical facts. You have presented a lot of bad information.

You have been backed into a corner. Instead of addressing the posts showing your error, you are now attempting to derail your own topic. I am not a fool, Jason. I am quite aware that your goal is to attempt to either derail this topic and avoid defending your own arguments of factual issues.

It is painfully obvious that your goal at this point is to ridiculously invalidate arguments of historical fact by saying they come from an erroneous belief system. Or perhaps just a derail in general to avoid addressing my previous posts.

Address my points and stay on topic. What my beliefs are has no bearing on the fact wine was fermented.

But your words are just filler and they do not really prove anything.
The heart of the matter here on alcohol is a disregard for morality or God's goodness.

It's why you also most likely believe the Scriptures say that God told Hosea to marry a prostitute. You do not get it. There is nothing wrong with that concept to you because you believe God's Word says that, so it make everything alright - regardless of what you know to be good and right). But did God really tell Hosea to marry a prostitute? No, of course not. Neither did Jesus make intoxicating wine. That is not what either of the texts say (Contrary to popular Christiandom);

...