Alcohol Ok in Moderation?

[CID_0687]

I'm sure there are other threads like this, but I'm too lazy to go back and search. I know it is a sin to be drunk. But is it a sin to drink? This can be a touchy subject, I've seen believers get downright mad and want to fight each other over this. I'm just curious how others believe. Personally, I'll have a drink on occasion and I don't feel that this has a positive or negative effect on my relationship with Christ. What do y'all think?

[archangelo]

Tonight? Yes.

:wall::wall::wall:

[CID_0687]

Tonight? Yes.

:wall::wall::wall::))

[cbut1]

I'm sure there are other threads like this, but I'm too lazy to go back and search. I know it is a sin to be drunk. But is it a sin to drink? This can be a touchy subject, I've seen believers get downright mad and want to fight each other over this. I'm just curious how others believe. Personally, I'll have a drink on occasion and I don't feel that this has a positive or negative effect on my relationship with Christ. What do y'all think?



I never have even before being saved and joining the Church. I find it allows the opportunity for good people to do some stupid things and I do enough of those without having a drink. It says in Gods Word that one should not give Satan the opportunity to influence your life and drinking lowers ones normal stop buttons enough to cause life long damage.

[Andrew_980]

Alchohol, like most drugs, is just fine in moderation and used in the right place. But like all drugs too much or used inapropriately and it can easily end in disaster.

[Constantine the Great]

I'm sure there are other threads like this, but I'm too lazy to go back and search. I know it is a sin to be drunk. But is it a sin to drink? This can be a touchy subject, I've seen believers get downright mad and want to fight each other over this. I'm just curious how others believe. Personally, I'll have a drink on occasion and I don't feel that this has a positive or negative effect on my relationship with Christ. What do y'all think?


Pan metron ariston

[Tucson Jim]

Pan metron ariston

I agree with you and the OP - as long as it is done in moderation, I see no scriptural prohibition against it.

I also have no problem if brothers or sisters want to abstain. I think it is a choice we must make for ourselves.

[CID_0687]

I agree if people choose to abstain that is their choice as well.

[cbut1]

It does say to abstain from strong drink which I think means leave the Irish Whiskey alone. :D



One of the sad misnomers is that many interpret the wine of those days to be like the wine of today and it is vastly different. Grapes; as with most fruits, when sqeezed for its juice does have a natural fermentation that is triggered by the sugars. Todays wine takes all those natural sugars and then adds many times more to it as a result you get a higher fermentation level which translates into higher alcohol content.

[Poisonshady313]

I have heard a Rabbi say that two things which indicate celebration are wine and meat.

I'm sure there's no place in the Tanach where God condemns alcohol altogether.

In fact, Numbers 6, which talks about the nazirite vow, says: He shall abstain from new wine and aged wine; he shall not drink [even] vinegar made from new wine or aged wine, nor shall he drink anything in which grapes have been steeped, and he shall eat neither fresh grapes nor dried ones.

To make this special prohibition on wine for someone undergoing a nazirite vow, it must be that it's acceptable for non nazirites to partake of wine.

[CID_0687]

It does say to abstain from strong drink which I think means leave the Irish Whiskey alone. :D



One of the sad misnomers is that many interpret the wine of those days to be like the wine of today and it is vastly different. Grapes; as with most fruits, when sqeezed for its juice does have a natural fermentation that is triggered by the sugars. Todays wine takes all those natural sugars and then adds many times more to it as a result you get a higher fermentation level which translates into higher alcohol content.
True, but didn't they also have beer in Biblical days? I don't believe they would've had liquor, like we know it, because they didn't have the tools or materials needed to produce stills. But beer and wine, by today's standards are lower in alcohol content than liquor. But then again so is the glass of bourbon and coke I have once or twice a week.

[CID_0687]

When Paul is addressing Timothy, he tells him that a little wine is good for the stomach. In the same book Paul also says that Pastors and Deacons should not be drunkards. But he never comes out and says they can't drink.

[Poisonshady313]

A Rabbi answers a question about the role of wine in Judaism:

A leader of a house of worship was giving a fiery sermon: "If I had all the beer in the world," he said, "I'd take it and throw it in the river; and if I had all the wine in the world, I'd take it and throw it in the river! And if I had all the whiskey in the world, I'd take it and throw it into the river." He sat down. The choir leader then stood and said with a grin, "All please rise for the singing of Hymn #258: 'We Shall Gather at the River.' "

The above story illustrates two ways to look at wine: The sermonizer believes that wine is intrinsically evil and must be totally avoided, while the choir leader implies that hedonistic immersion in wine is not so bad. The Jewish view is far from both of these views. We believe that the enjoyment of wine, like other physical pleasures, can and should be used in the service of G-d.

Wine is mentioned in Psalms as something that "gladdens the heart of man," and hence it is used to gladden and inspire us at various times - like kiddush on Shabbat (sanctification of Shabbat), at a circumcision and a wedding.

Wine symbolizes a completed and perfected human life. It starts off as an inferior product (grape juice = childhood, immaturity) but must go through fermentation (struggle = challenge of evil) and only then does it become the superior product, wine. We drink it on occasions where we have passed a certain fermentation process (marriage) or at times, like Shabbat, which represent the final product of human life, the World to Come.

[Thank you Troops]

I don't drink any alcohol because I don't like to be around it or around others that drink. It grieves my spirit when I see others drinking but I do not believe it is a sin if a person doesn't think it is a sin to them. To me it is a sin because it would hurt my testimony. No matter if I drank one beer, or had a beer in my hand just holding it for someone, it would be considered as validation to some. Imagine Billy Graham drinking a beer while preaching because it wasn't a sin.

[Marleysdaddy]

One of the sad misnomers is that many interpret the wine of those days to be like the wine of today and it is vastly different. Grapes; as with most fruits, when sqeezed for its juice does have a natural fermentation that is triggered by the sugars. Todays wine takes all those natural sugars and then adds many times more to it as a result you get a higher fermentation level which translates into higher alcohol content.

The alcohol content of any alcoholic drink is dependent on the yeast used to ferment the sugars, and at some point, reaches a limit, because when the concentration reaches that point, the yeast cells die...distilling takes a blend of alcohol and water in which the maximum concentration has already been reached (and the yeast are dead or removed) and continues to remove more water, thus making it stronger...but all wines are close to the same, some are spiked with extra sugar to keep the yeast alive a little longer, or sometimes extra yeast is added at the end (bottle conditioning)...the greeks diluted their wine with water before drinking it, and references are made to people getting too drunk because they decided against diluting it...a higher alcohol content in wine also kept bacteria at bay (which is why ancient peoples discovered fermentation in the first place - aside from the pleasurable affects of intoxication, it was (and still is in some places) safer to drink alcohol than water.)
http://www.vinilazio.com/History%20of%20wine/THE%20GREEKS%20THE%20ART%20OF%20MAKING%20WINE%20IS %20BORN.htm'

Did Jesus drink the wine at the wedding? :)

[jmacvols]

I'm sure there are other threads like this, but I'm too lazy to go back and search. I know it is a sin to be drunk. But is it a sin to drink? This can be a touchy subject, I've seen believers get downright mad and want to fight each other over this. I'm just curious how others believe. Personally, I'll have a drink on occasion and I don't feel that this has a positive or negative effect on my relationship with Christ. What do y'all think?

The bible does not approve of social drinking in any amount, yet it condemns drunkeness. So the question is, when does one become drunk? Drunkeness is a matter of degree, therefore one cannot drink until he reaches a point of drunkeness, his drunkeness begins with the first social drink and he reaches more degrees of drunkeness from there.

[ogibillm]

alcohol is ok in moderation... but it's great to excess!

[Apatriot]

The bible does not approve of social drinking in any amount

Of course it does. Jesus at the wedding created wine out of water to drink at a party. If that's not condoning social drinking, I don't know what would qualify.


, yet it condemns drunkeness.

It's easy to drink and not get drunk.

So the question is, when does one become drunk? Drunkeness is a matter of degree, therefore one cannot drink until he reaches a point of drunkeness, his drunkeness begins with the first social drink and he reaches more degrees of drunkeness from there.

If you can't drink without being drunk, then don't drink. Drunkenness means being noticeably impaired by alcohol. I can drink a drink an hour all day without being drunk.

[jmacvols]

Of course it does. Jesus at the wedding created wine out of water to drink at a party. If that's not condoning social drinking, I don't know what would qualify.

There is no proof whatsoever that the ""wine"" Jesus made was the intoxicating kind. The under lying Greek word for wine [onios] can easily mean unfermented as fermented. Jesus would not tempt men to sin by serving intoxicating beverage to them.



It's easy to drink and not get drunk.

It's impossible...drunkenness begins with the first drink and grows from there. In Eph 5:18, for example, Paul says not to be "drunken". This verb, according to Vine, is an inceptive verb, it shows the process of becoming drunk. Hence drunkenness, according to the bible, is a matter of degree, not a certain point one eventually reaches.



If you can't drink without being drunk, then don't drink. Drunkenness means being noticeably impaired by alcohol. I can drink a drink an hour all day without being drunk.
No one can socially drink without becoming drunk...one has to abstain from the first drink in order not to become drunk. Drinking impairs with the first drink, one need not be falling down and dizzy-headed to be drunk.

[Apatriot]

There is no proof whatsoever that the ""wine"" Jesus made was the intoxicating kind. The under lying Greek word for wine [onios] can easily mean unfermented as fermented. Jesus would not tempt men to sin by serving intoxicating beverage to them.

The story makes no sense if it's not wine. I love how people try to manipulate language in order to justify their own views. Until the advent of the Puritans, this was not thought of.

John 2:1 On the third day there was a wedding in Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there.
2 Jesus and his disciples were also invited to the wedding.
3 When the wine ran short, the mother of Jesus said to him, "They have no wine."
4 (And) Jesus said to her, "Woman, how does your concern affect me? My hour has not yet come."
5 His mother said to the servers, "Do whatever he tells you."
6 Now there were six stone water jars there for Jewish ceremonial washings, each holding twenty to thirty gallons.
7 Jesus told them, "Fill the jars with water." So they filled them to the brim.
8 Then he told them, "Draw some out now and take it to the headwaiter." So they took it.
9 And when the headwaiter tasted the water that had become wine, without knowing where it came from (although the servers who had drawn the water knew), the headwaiter called the bridegroom
10 and said to him, "Everyone serves good wine first, and then when people have drunk freely, an inferior one; but you have kept the good wine until now."

That last verse makes no sense unless alcoholic wine is being drunk.






It's impossible...drunkenness begins with the first drink and grows from there. In Eph 5:18, for example, Paul says not to be "drunken". This verb, according to Vine, is an inceptive verb, it shows the process of becoming drunk. Hence drunkenness, according to the bible, is a matter of degree, not a certain point one eventually reaches.

Then why does Paul also say: Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities. (1 Timothy 5:23)






No one can socially drink without becoming drunk...one has to abstain from the first drink in order not to become drunk. Drinking impairs with the first drink, one need not be falling down and dizzy-headed to be drunk.

A sip of wine does not impair. A drink of wine with a meal doesn't impair. That's just puritanical thinking, not Biblical thinking.

[Gidon]

Mat 15:11 Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.


The wine they drank in bible times was alcoholic.




To suppose that they drank grape juice as their main staple is simply rubbish. It is the heart of the man that God looks upon. If you choose not to drink then God bless you. I choose to have an occasional glass of wine with my meal and that is fine for me. Anything to excess could be considered idolatry. Be it food, drink, golf or whatever.

Rom 14:1 ¶ Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, [but] not to doubtful disputations.
Rom 14:2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.
Rom 14:3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.
Rom 14:4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.

[meggers49]

It does say to abstain from strong drink which I think means leave the Irish Whiskey alone. :D



One of the sad misnomers is that many interpret the wine of those days to be like the wine of today and it is vastly different. Grapes; as with most fruits, when sqeezed for its juice does have a natural fermentation that is triggered by the sugars. Todays wine takes all those natural sugars and then adds many times more to it as a result you get a higher fermentation level which translates into higher alcohol content.

i don't think that's necessarily accurate. wine is wine. it's in how much you drink. you can get drunk on near beer too if you drink enough of it. secondly, if you remember at Cana, they talked about serving the good wine at the beginning and the lesser wines later. Generally because in the beginning people would be aware and alert enough to know good from lousy. Hence when Jesus made the wine for later, the steward's amazement.

consequently, i don't believe one must not drink, just drink responsibily. if one is irresponsible, then not even one.

[buflineks]

It does say to abstain from strong drink which I think means leave the Irish Whiskey alone. :D.

Blasphemy!!!!:naughty:


Strong drink would be everclear or moonshine.

I'm pretty sure the Lord drinks Irish whiskey..................................look at the platypus.

If that isn't something out of a drunken Irishman's hallucination, nothing is.

[meggers49]

I don't drink any alcohol because I don't like to be around it or around others that drink. It grieves my spirit when I see others drinking but I do not believe it is a sin if a person doesn't think it is a sin to them. To me it is a sin because it would hurt my testimony. No matter if I drank one beer, or had a beer in my hand just holding it for someone, it would be considered as validation to some. Imagine Billy Graham drinking a beer while preaching because it wasn't a sin.

why would i imagine billy graham drinking a beer while preaching?

what does one have to do with the other?
Jesus had wine, he was able to preach. As did the Apostles. One does not preclude the other.

I am not a 'drinker' per se. I have a glass of wine on special occasions, or a drink at a party, but i'm basically a sprite girl (used to be diet pepsi, but.....it's a long story). If you do not get drunk and are not acting in a scandalous way, how is it negatively effecting your 'testimony'. I mean no offense, but to me, i would find that self-righteous, like a person who has a drink is 'unclean'.

the only thing it could validate is that having an occasional drink isn't a sin, but being a drunken sot is. one is not the other.

[texan_rep]

Drinking alcohol in moderation...

:think:

Does that mean tislaw, goodlife, Lee, gdoane or FireWatch are serving? :eek:

[meggers49]

The alcohol content of any alcoholic drink is dependent on the yeast used to ferment the sugars, and at some point, reaches a limit, because when the concentration reaches that point, the yeast cells die...distilling takes a blend of alcohol and water in which the maximum concentration has already been reached (and the yeast are dead or removed) and continues to remove more water, thus making it stronger...but all wines are close to the same, some are spiked with extra sugar to keep the yeast alive a little longer, or sometimes extra yeast is added at the end (bottle conditioning)...the greeks diluted their wine with water before drinking it, and references are made to people getting too drunk because they decided against diluting it...a higher alcohol content in wine also kept bacteria at bay (which is why ancient peoples discovered fermentation in the first place - aside from the pleasurable affects of intoxication, it was (and still is in some places) safer to drink alcohol than water.)
http://www.vinilazio.com/History%20of%20wine/THE%20GREEKS%20THE%20ART%20OF%20MAKING%20WINE%20IS %20BORN.htm'

Did Jesus drink the wine at the wedding? :)

don't know, but he blessed the wine at the Last Supper and dipped his bread into the wine with 'the one who would betray him'.........

[buflineks]

Drinking alcohol in moderation...

:think:

Does that mean tislaw, goodlife, Lee, gdoane or FireWatch are serving? :eek:


I'll take a Tullamore Dew on the rocks, double tall.

[meggers49]

There is no proof whatsoever that the ""wine"" Jesus made was the intoxicating kind. The under lying Greek word for wine [onios] can easily mean unfermented as fermented. Jesus would not tempt men to sin by serving intoxicating beverage to them.





It's impossible...drunkenness begins with the first drink and grows from there. In Eph 5:18, for example, Paul says not to be "drunken". This verb, according to Vine, is an inceptive verb, it shows the process of becoming drunk. Hence drunkenness, according to the bible, is a matter of degree, not a certain point one eventually reaches.




No one can socially drink without becoming drunk...one has to abstain from the first drink in order not to become drunk. Drinking impairs with the first drink, one need not be falling down and dizzy-headed to be drunk.

you apparently haven't read about sobriety tests. that statement you have made is false.

[Mikko]

Alcohol is fine in moderation, but some people can't drink it in moderation.

[Harmonious]

Blasphemy!!!!:naughty:


Strong drink would be everclear or moonshine.

I'm pretty sure the Lord drinks Irish whiskey..................................look at the platypus.

If that isn't something out of a drunken Irishman's hallucination, nothing is.

:))

[Poisonshady313]

Alcohol is fine in moderation, but some people can't drink it in moderation.

I am reminded of the south park episode entitled Bloody Mary.

AA convinces Randy Marsh that alcoholism is a deadly disease... and Marsh, being a hypochondriac, confines himself to a wheelchair, guzzling beers, truly believing that he has no power over his tendency to drink... that he must rely on a higher power to get him to quit forever.

Thinking a bleeding statue of Mary was the miracle needed to cure his alcoholism, he gives up alcohol altogether.... then hearing the Pope declare that it wasn't a miracle made him order three shots of McAllen, two small bottles of vodka, three bottles of beer and some Jell-O shooters.

His son finally wakes him up to the fact that all he needs is some discipline.

(This next bit isn't directed at you, Mikko... just me ranting in general)

Nothing in scripture condemns alcohol in all manners. In fact, Jews who pride themselves on living their lives according to the Torah (First five books of the bible) sanctify the Sabbath every week with a cup of wine before the Sabbath meal. For the Passover seder, we drink 4 cups of wine symbolizing the four expressions of freedom. How screwed up is it to tell the Jews that for the past 3000 years, the very thing we've been doing to sanctify holy days is a sin?

I'd like to repost the answer of a Rabbi on these matters. Take notice of the fact that Psalms describes wine as something that gladdens the heart.

Psalms 104:14 He causes grass to sprout for the animals and vegetation for the work of man, to bring forth bread from the earth.
Psalms 104:15. And wine, which cheers man's heart, to make the face shine from oil, and bread, which sustains man's heart.

Who is He? God.

Psalms 104:1 My soul, bless the Lord. My God, You are very great, You are attired with majesty and beauty.

A Rabbi answers a question about the role of wine in Judaism:

A leader of a house of worship was giving a fiery sermon: "If I had all the beer in the world," he said, "I'd take it and throw it in the river; and if I had all the wine in the world, I'd take it and throw it in the river! And if I had all the whiskey in the world, I'd take it and throw it into the river." He sat down. The choir leader then stood and said with a grin, "All please rise for the singing of Hymn #258: 'We Shall Gather at the River.' "

The above story illustrates two ways to look at wine: The sermonizer believes that wine is intrinsically evil and must be totally avoided, while the choir leader implies that hedonistic immersion in wine is not so bad. The Jewish view is far from both of these views. We believe that the enjoyment of wine, like other physical pleasures, can and should be used in the service of G-d.

Wine is mentioned in Psalms as something that "gladdens the heart of man," and hence it is used to gladden and inspire us at various times - like kiddush on Shabbat (sanctification of Shabbat), at a circumcision and a wedding.

Wine symbolizes a completed and perfected human life. It starts off as an inferior product (grape juice = childhood, immaturity) but must go through fermentation (struggle = challenge of evil) and only then does it become the superior product, wine. We drink it on occasions where we have passed a certain fermentation process (marriage) or at times, like Shabbat, which represent the final product of human life, the World to Come.

[jmacvols]

The story makes no sense if it's not wine. I love how people try to manipulate language in order to justify their own views. Until the advent of the Puritans, this was not thought of.

That last verse makes no sense unless alcoholic wine is being drunk.


Then why does Paul also say: Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities. (1 Timothy 5:23)


A sip of wine does not impair. A drink of wine with a meal doesn't impair. That's just puritanical thinking, not Biblical thinking.

Puritans or "puritanical" thinking has nothing to do with the issue at hand, this is simple deflection.

You simply ignored the implications of Jesus providing an intoxicating beverage to those at Cana. The context tells us the reason that Jesus performed miracles, as the one at Cana, was to make manifest His glory and to induce faith in others. Leading others to become drunk would not manifest glory but shame. ""IF"" those people were already drunk and Jesus provided them more intoxicating drinks, then Jesus was doing nothing more than making them even more drunk and prolonging their drunkenness. Jesus would be violating every verse in the NT that condemns drunkenness.....Jesus was a sinner, a bartender that promoted the manufactuirng, selling and consumption of alcohol.
Also while Jesus was alive He was living under the OT law. According to Matthew, the Messiah was to fulfill the OT law, which is what Jesus did perfectly, He was sinless, He would not have violated Prov 20:1 or Hab 2:15 by making His neighbors inflamed with wine. You're still ""assuming" that "wine" here always means fermented wine. The English word "wine" is used in the bible to describe freshly pressed grapes and a cluster i.e., grape juice.
Paul was not condoning social drinking, he was providing a remedy for the stomach ailments specifically for Timothy. Timothy was to drink water mixed with wine, thus diluting any alcoholic content the wine may have had. But again, there is no proof that "wine" here is referring to fermented wine.
Again, drunkenness begins with the first drink, not the last one. You did not respond to what I said about Eph 5:18 about the verb drunken being inceptive showing the beginning of an action, the process of becoming drunk. Also what about 1 Thess 5:6-8 where Paul contrast sober to drunken? Sober is nepho [nephalism] means to abstain from. The social drinker is not abstaining.

[Reeder]

Alchohol can impair judgement. Would there be any alchoholics in the world if they had not first took it "in moderation?" Its just like smoking, drugs, pornography, etc.......How do people become addicted to these things?......they try it once, and it builds from there.

1 Thes. 5: 22

22 Abstain from all appearance of evil.


Why risk bringing yourself closer to the line? Why not just abstain altogether?

[Reeder]

Puritans or "puritanical" thinking has nothing to do with the issue at hand, this is simple deflection.

You simply ignored the implications of Jesus providing an intoxicating beverage to those at Cana. The context tells us the reason that Jesus performed miracles, as the one at Cana, was to make manifest His glory and to induce faith in others. Leading others to become drunk would not manifest glory but shame. ""IF"" those people were already drunk and Jesus provided them more intoxicating drinks, then Jesus was doing nothing more than making them even more drunk and prolonging their drunkenness. Jesus would be violating every verse in the NT that condemns drunkenness.....Jesus was a sinner, a bartender that promoted the manufactuirng, selling and consumption of alcohol.
Also while Jesus was alive He was living under the OT law. According to Matthew, the Messiah was to fulfill the OT law, which is what Jesus did perfectly, He was sinless, He would not have violated Prov 20:1 or Hab 2:15 by making His neighbors inflamed with wine. You're still ""assuming" that "wine" here always means fermented wine. The English word "wine" is used in the bible to describe freshly pressed grapes and a cluster i.e., grape juice.
Paul was not condoning social drinking, he was providing a remedy for the stomach ailments specifically for Timothy. Timothy was to drink water mixed with wine, thus diluting any alcoholic content the wine may have had. But again, there is no proof that "wine" here is referring to fermented wine.
Again, drunkenness begins with the first drink, not the last one. You did not respond to what I said about Eph 5:18 about the verb drunken being inceptive showing the beginning of an action, the process of becoming drunk. Also what about 1 Thess 5:6-8 where Paul contrast sober to drunken? Sober is nepho [nepalism] means to abstain from. The social drinker is not abstaining.


+1

[darknessesedge]

I'm sure there are other threads like this, but I'm too lazy to go back and search. I know it is a sin to be drunk. But is it a sin to drink? This can be a touchy subject, I've seen believers get downright mad and want to fight each other over this. I'm just curious how others believe. Personally, I'll have a drink on occasion and I don't feel that this has a positive or negative effect on my relationship with Christ. What do y'all think?

I will be getting drunk if hill or ob gets in

[ogibillm]

I will be getting drunk if hill or ob gets in

me too! but probably for different reasons...

[JenT]

I will be getting drunk if hill or ob gets in

:)) :)) :))

you and me both

[JenT]

I have mixed feelings about it because my ex was a flaming alcoholic (and is currently drinking himself to death in a ditch somewhere) I watched him struggle and I never noticed before how many different areas a person could be innocently going by, and alcohol is in their face (commercials, saloons, T-shirts, etc.) It made me sad.

But I can go a year without a drink and not even notice it. I really think it's genetic because all of my 20s are a blur from partying, but when I got bored with it, (shrug) I just forgot about it.

So I really really think it depends on the person. But I really wish people didn't have to see the temptation of it everywhere. It's really hard on people sincerely trying to quit.

[buflineks]

Puritans or "puritanical" thinking has nothing to do with the issue at hand, this is simple deflection.

You simply ignored the implications of Jesus providing an intoxicating beverage to those at Cana. The context tells us the reason that Jesus performed miracles, as the one at Cana, was to make manifest His glory and to induce faith in others. Leading others to become drunk would not manifest glory but shame. ""IF"" those people were already drunk and Jesus provided them more intoxicating drinks, then Jesus was doing nothing more than making them even more drunk and prolonging their drunkenness. Jesus would be violating every verse in the NT that condemns drunkenness.....Jesus was a sinner, a bartender that promoted the manufactuirng, selling and consumption of alcohol.
Also while Jesus was alive He was living under the OT law. According to Matthew, the Messiah was to fulfill the OT law, which is what Jesus did perfectly, He was sinless, He would not have violated Prov 20:1 or Hab 2:15 by making His neighbors inflamed with wine. You're still ""assuming" that "wine" here always means fermented wine. The English word "wine" is used in the bible to describe freshly pressed grapes and a cluster i.e., grape juice.
Paul was not condoning social drinking, he was providing a remedy for the stomach ailments specifically for Timothy. Timothy was to drink water mixed with wine, thus diluting any alcoholic content the wine may have had. But again, there is no proof that "wine" here is referring to fermented wine.
Again, drunkenness begins with the first drink, not the last one. You did not respond to what I said about Eph 5:18 about the verb drunken being inceptive showing the beginning of an action, the process of becoming drunk. Also what about 1 Thess 5:6-8 where Paul contrast sober to drunken? Sober is nepho [nephalism] means to abstain from. The social drinker is not abstaining.

The only deflectin here, is you.

Jmac, you and I have had this conversation.

You talk about there being "no proof that the wine was fermented". You have no proof otherwise other than your "Sola Interpreta".

Common sense and study of cultural habits, Anthtropolgy, and ancient Sociology, prove you wrong.

You've stated that Christ would have drank wine because intoxicating liquour is "a sin". Well, then he wouldn't have celebrated passover. In those days they didn't have "Kosher non-alcoholic wine". As a devout Jew, Christ did in fact drink wine. And it was fermented and Kosher.

Your "Sola Interpreta Historical Revisionism" is nothing more than an attempt to justify a current doctrine within your sect.

In fact, it wouldn't suuprise me or any other serious historian if Christ cracked a six-pack every once and a while because beer was also a common drink of that area in that period. Liquid bread was very common and a staple.

[buflineks]

Nothing in scripture condemns alcohol in all manners. In fact, Jews who pride themselves on living their lives according to the Torah (First five books of the bible) sanctify the Sabbath every week with a cup of wine before the Sabbath meal. For the Passover seder, we drink 4 cups of wine symbolizing the four expressions of freedom. How screwed up is it to tell the Jews that for the past 3000 years, the very thing we've been doing to sanctify holy days is a sin?.

Thank you poison.

Now then, my question for jmac is this. Was Christ a devout Jew? If he was, then he would have drank as stated above.

that puts this whole "Jesus only drank grape juice" silliness to bed.

[darknessesedge]

Thank you poison.

Now then, my question for jmac is this. Was Christ a devout Jew? If he was, then he would have drank as stated above.

that puts this whole "Jesus only drank grape juice" silliness to bed.

was it welches?
thats good juice!!

[Hadassah]

I'm sure there are other threads like this, but I'm too lazy to go back and search. I know it is a sin to be drunk. But is it a sin to drink? This can be a touchy subject, I've seen believers get downright mad and want to fight each other over this. I'm just curious how others believe. Personally, I'll have a drink on occasion and I don't feel that this has a positive or negative effect on my relationship with Christ. What do y'all think?

I hope it's not a sin to drink because I sure need a drink right now. :wall:

[darknessesedge]

I hope it's not a sin to drink because I sure need a drink right now. :wall:

belly up to the bar maam..what will you have?

[Hadassah]

belly up to the bar maam..what will you have?

double shot of Jack Daniels on the rocks

[darknessesedge]

double shot of Jack Daniels on the rocks

thats my drink
love jack.
love jim beam too
old grandad
love bourbon!!

[RayMan]

double shot of Jack Daniels on the rocks


None of that sissy Irish stuff, eh?

[Hadassah]

None of that sissy Irish stuff, eh?

:)) :)) :))

[buflineks]

None of that sissy Irish stuff, eh?

:rolleyes:

Yeah, if you like sucking on a piece of charcoal.

[Hadassah]

:rolleyes:

Yeah, if you like sucking on a piece of charcoal.


yeah, since the sytuff is so great, why don't you send me some? :mrgreen:

[buflineks]

yeah, since the sytuff is so great, why don't you send me some? :mrgreen:

well, evidently your fingers are already drunk.:)):)):))

[RayMan]

well, evidently your fingers are already drunk.:)):)):))

You are appairidently correkt sir.

[Hadassah]

well, evidently your fingers are already drunk.:)):)):))

a condition your fingers are well aquainted with. :whistle::razz::mrgreen:

[buflineks]

a condition your fingers are well aquainted with. :whistle::razz::mrgreen:

I didn't gain my ecclesiastical title for nothing.

[RayMan]

:rolleyes:

Yeah, if you like sucking on a piece of charcoal.

I figured impugning the virtues of fine Irish Malt Whiskey would bring you out of stealth mode.

You doing alright buf?

[buflineks]

I figured impugning the virtues of fine Irish Malt Whiskey would bring you out of stealth mode.

You doing alright buf?

relaxing.

Watching people make ignorant statements. Watching people getting upset.

Laughing at my class mates who got extensions on their papers and are now so buried that they are gonna have to be piped sunlight for the next five day.

I went a picked up my tickets to the ball game wednesday.

Tommorrow I start hitting the books for tests and finals.

But yeah, I'm doing great. In fact, I'm not even DRINKING this evening. Not in the mood.

[RayMan]

relaxing.

Watching people make ignorant statements. Watching people getting upset.

Laughing at my class mates who got extensions on their papers and are now so buried that they are gonna have to be piped sunlight for the next five day.

I went a picked up my tickets to the ball game wednesday.

Tommorrow I start hitting the books for tests and finals.

But yeah, I'm doing great. In fact, I'm not even DRINKING this evening. Not in the mood.

Good! Let Hadassah do all the heaving shot glass lifting for a change.

Last week at work I got two sets of two tickets each for Giant's games. Really nice seats behind the catcher. Where I work is just about a 10 minute walk from the stadium. Both games start at noon so I get free tickets AND will get paid for the afternoon to watch baseball! Sweet.

[Hadassah]

Good! Let Hadassah do all the heaving shot glass lifting for a change.



he should let me do that. after all, it's all buf's fault. :whistle:

[buflineks]

Last week at work I got two sets of two tickets each for Giant's games. Really nice seats behind the catcher. Where I work is just about a 10 minute walk from the stadium. Both games start at noon so I get free tickets AND will get paid for the afternoon to watch baseball! Sweet.

Score!!!!!!!!:dance:

[RayMan]

he should let me do that. after all, it's all buf's fault. :whistle:


You know, that line is always funny because it's always true! Nobody ever gets tired of reading it.



Except maybe that Templar guy.

[buflineks]

he should let me do that. after all, it's all buf's fault. :whistle:

What?

Who?

Me?

When?

It was the booze.

[LeroyBrown]

I don't drink any alcohol because I don't like to be around it or around others that drink. It grieves my spirit when I see others drinking but I do not believe it is a sin if a person doesn't think it is a sin to them. To me it is a sin because it would hurt my testimony. No matter if I drank one beer, or had a beer in my hand just holding it for someone, it would be considered as validation to some. Imagine Billy Graham drinking a beer while preaching because it wasn't a sin.

I can't imagine Billy Graham doing that. He'd be more likely to quote scripture on how one was not to be drinking when they were going to serve at the "tent of meeting".

[RayMan]

What?

Who?

Me?

When?

It was the booze.

Didn't work for Jake Blues in that sewer with Carrie Fisher. Ain't workin' for you now buddy.

"The Limo was late."

"My tux was at the cleaners."

"It's not my fault!"

[buflineks]

Didn't work for Jake Blues in that sewer with Carrie Fisher. Ain't workin' for you now buddy.

"The Limo was late."

"My tux was at the cleaners."

"It's not my fault!"

If I'm Jake..............does that make you Elwood?:))

[Poisonshady313]

Puritans or "puritanical" thinking has nothing to do with the issue at hand, this is simple deflection.

You simply ignored the implications of Jesus providing an intoxicating beverage to those at Cana. The context tells us the reason that Jesus performed miracles, as the one at Cana, was to make manifest His glory and to induce faith in others. Leading others to become drunk would not manifest glory but shame. ""IF"" those people were already drunk and Jesus provided them more intoxicating drinks, then Jesus was doing nothing more than making them even more drunk and prolonging their drunkenness. Jesus would be violating every verse in the NT that condemns drunkenness.....Jesus was a sinner, a bartender that promoted the manufactuirng, selling and consumption of alcohol.
Also while Jesus was alive He was living under the OT law. According to Matthew, the Messiah was to fulfill the OT law, which is what Jesus did perfectly, He was sinless, He would not have violated Prov 20:1 or Hab 2:15 by making His neighbors inflamed with wine. You're still ""assuming" that "wine" here always means fermented wine. The English word "wine" is used in the bible to describe freshly pressed grapes and a cluster i.e., grape juice.
Paul was not condoning social drinking, he was providing a remedy for the stomach ailments specifically for Timothy. Timothy was to drink water mixed with wine, thus diluting any alcoholic content the wine may have had. But again, there is no proof that "wine" here is referring to fermented wine.
Again, drunkenness begins with the first drink, not the last one. You did not respond to what I said about Eph 5:18 about the verb drunken being inceptive showing the beginning of an action, the process of becoming drunk. Also what about 1 Thess 5:6-8 where Paul contrast sober to drunken? Sober is nepho [nephalism] means to abstain from. The social drinker is not abstaining.

The Tanach looks down on drunkenness... but also states that wine gladdens mens hearts.... which suggests drinking in some amounts is permissible.... which says to me that drinking does not = drunk.

Either Paul is wrong, or the greek is wrong.

[Hadassah]

The Tanach looks down on drunkenness... but also states that wine gladdens mens hearts.... which suggests drinking in some amounts is permissible.... which says to me that drinking does not = drunk.

Either Paul is wrong, or the greek is wrong.

or his interpretation of what Paul said was wrong.

[RayMan]

The Tanach looks down on drunkenness... but also states that wine gladdens mens hearts.... which suggests drinking in some amounts is permissible.... which says to me that drinking does not = drunk.

Either Paul is wrong, or the greek is wrong.

Hey Ps,
Actually jmacvols is wrong. IMHO.

[RayMan]

If I'm Jake..............does that make you Elwood?:))

Would you like a rubber biscuit?

[Poisonshady313]

either way... whoever says that alcohol is not ok in moderation is wrong.

[RayMan]

either way... whoever says that alcohol is not ok in moderation is wrong.

No argument here my friend.

[Tucson Jim]

Thank you poison.

Now then, my question for jmac is this. Was Christ a devout Jew? If he was, then he would have drank as stated above.

that puts this whole "Jesus only drank grape juice" silliness to bed.

Somehow, I don't think jmac will change his mind . . .

[Tucson Jim]

The Tanach looks down on drunkenness... but also states that wine gladdens mens hearts.... which suggests drinking in some amounts is permissible.... which says to me that drinking does not = drunk.

Either Paul is wrong, or the greek is wrong.

Or jmac's interpretation of Paul is wrong.

[Tucson Jim]

or his interpretation of what Paul said was wrong.

Oops - I didn't see your post until after I posted the same thing!

[CID_0687]

The Episcopal church I grew up in. The ONLY Episcopal church in my small southern town has an open bar every 5th Saturday. I think I'll hit the open bar next mass.

[RayMan]

Somehow, I don't think jmac will change his mind . . .

That's alright.

[buflineks]

Would you like a rubber biscuit?

How about a "Wish sandwich"?

You know the one............you take two pieces of bread...............and you wish you had something in the middle!

Bow, Bow, Bow!!!

[RayMan]

How about a "Wish sandwich"?

You know the one............you take two pieces of bread...............and you wish you had something in the middle!

Bow, Bow, Bow!!!

Reminds me of a time about 27 years ago when I was in Bible College and we were down to nothing but a half a box of grits in the cupboard. God sent somebody who knew nothing about our condition over with three or four bags of groceries.

God is good - he will give you some baloney to stick between those slices of bread.
Oh, wait a minute, you have plenty of baloney. I meant blarney, no I meant....:D

Night buf. God bless.

[buflineks]

Reminds me of a time about 27 years ago when I was in Bible College and we were down to nothing but a half a box of grits in the cupboard. God sent somebody who knew nothing about our condition over with three or four bags of groceries.

God is good - he will give you some baloney to stick between those slices of bread.
Oh, wait a minute, you have plenty of baloney. I meant blarney, no I meant....:D

Night buf. God bless.


:)):)):)):)):))

night RayMan. Get some sleep.

[CID_0687]

:)):)):)):)):))

night RayMan. Get some sleep.
yeah go to sleep old man, you've got a long day of drinking booze and beating me tomorrow.:mrgreen:

[Hadassah]

Reminds me of a time about 27 years ago when I was in Bible College and we were down to nothing but a half a box of grits in the cupboard. God sent somebody who knew nothing about our condition over with three or four bags of groceries.

God is good - he will give you some baloney to stick between those slices of bread.
Oh, wait a minute, you have plenty of baloney. I meant blarney, no I meant....:D

Night buf. God bless.

Oh, he's got plenty of blarney all right. :whistle:

[Apatriot]

The only deflectin here, is you.

Jmac, you and I have had this conversation.

You talk about there being "no proof that the wine was fermented". You have no proof otherwise other than your "Sola Interpreta".

Common sense and study of cultural habits, Anthtropolgy, and ancient Sociology, prove you wrong.

Exactly!

You've stated that Christ would have drank wine because intoxicating liquour is "a sin". Well, then he wouldn't have celebrated passover. In those days they didn't have "Kosher non-alcoholic wine". As a devout Jew, Christ did in fact drink wine. And it was fermented and Kosher.

Your "Sola Interpreta Historical Revisionism" is nothing more than an attempt to justify a current doctrine within your sect.

In fact, it wouldn't suuprise me or any other serious historian if Christ cracked a six-pack every once and a while because beer was also a common drink of that area in that period. Liquid bread was very common and a staple.

Yep. He was a fisherman, after all.....

[jmacvols]

The only deflectin here, is you.

Jmac, you and I have had this conversation.

You talk about there being "no proof that the wine was fermented". You have no proof otherwise other than your "Sola Interpreta".

Common sense and study of cultural habits, Anthtropolgy, and ancient Sociology, prove you wrong.

You've stated that Christ would have drank wine because intoxicating liquour is "a sin". Well, then he wouldn't have celebrated passover. In those days they didn't have "Kosher non-alcoholic wine". As a devout Jew, Christ did in fact drink wine. And it was fermented and Kosher.

Your "Sola Interpreta Historical Revisionism" is nothing more than an attempt to justify a current doctrine within your sect.

In fact, it wouldn't suuprise me or any other serious historian if Christ cracked a six-pack every once and a while because beer was also a common drink of that area in that period. Liquid bread was very common and a staple.

This is nothing more than your "sola opinion".
You said I gave no proof, yet I gave the implications of Jesus making fermented wine for the wedding guests, yet you simply disregarded them. Would Jesus violate Hab 2:15 and sin? No explanation was given by you how Jesus was manifesting His glory by causing people sin thru drunkenness. Jesus was God in the flesh and does God tempt people to sin thru drunkenness according to James? Or do men sin thru their own lust to drink? I gave information from a Greek scholar [Vine] how the verb drunken in Eph 5 is an inceptive verb showing that being drunk is a process, i.e., drunkenness begins with the first drink, not the last. I also showed how Paul contrasted 'sober' to 'drunken', that sober means to abstain(nephalism), that one cannot be at the same time a social drinker and abstaining, one is either sober or drunken, yet again, this was disregarded. Do you deny that the bible uses the English word "wine" when referring to grape juice? Some want to say it's just my interpretation, that is just another way to avoid the issues.
WIth a simply google search, you can find they did have ways to keep grape juice from fermenting. Any serious bible student would know the bible condemns social drinking and would not try and make a sinner out of Jesus in order to try and justify their own sinful habits.
Can you list reasons for the Christian to "social drink"? What good comes from it, what example/influence does it have, how does it promote the gospel of Christ, how does it save souls, how does it help others? The fact is, it does "nothing" whatsoever good for the Christian or the for the cause of Christ, it can only bring about harm.

[Apatriot]

Do you deny that the bible uses the English word "wine" when referring to grape juice? Some want to say it's just my interpretation, that is just another way to avoid the issues.
WIth a simply google search, you can find they did have ways to keep grape juice from fermenting.

Please show me a link to that. There are methods to do that, but none that are ancient. Without refrigeration, fermentation of grape juice begins in 6-12 hrs.

[buflineks]

.
WIth a simply google search, you can find they did have ways to keep grape juice from fermenting. Any serious bible student would know the bible condemns social drinking and would not try and make a sinner out of Jesus in order to try and justify their own sinful habits.
Can you list reasons for the Christian to "social drink"? What good comes from it, what example/influence does it have, how does it promote the gospel of Christ, how does it save souls, how does it help others? The fact is, it does "nothing" whatsoever good for the Christian or the for the cause of Christ, it can only bring about harm.

Google research. :rolleyes:

Sola Interpretation. :rolleyes:

Oh yeah, it was "Grape Juice" severed at the wedding.:rolleyes:

Christ never drank alcohol.:rolleyes:

Well, I may not be s "serious bible student" according to you, but I am a "History student" and I'll put that up against your "serious bible student" any day of the week when it comes to this subject.

Oh that's right, you were the one who said that if it wasn't written in the Bible it didn't occur. Ergo, Chirst was constipated .

[jmacvols]

Please show me a link to that. There are methods to do that, but none that are ancient. Without refrigeration, fermentation of grape juice begins in 6-12 hrs.

Here's one of many....

http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/books/wine_in_the_bible/3.html

[jmacvols]

Google research. :rolleyes:

Sola Interpretation. :rolleyes:

Oh yeah, it was "Grape Juice" severed at the wedding.:rolleyes:

Christ never drank alcohol.:rolleyes:

Well, I may not be s "serious bible student" according to you, but I am a "History student" and I'll put that up against your "serious bible student" any day of the week when it comes to this subject.

Oh that's right, you were the one who said that if it wasn't written in the Bible it didn't occur. Ergo, Chirst was constipated .

Still avoiding the issues i gave you......

[ogibillm]

Still avoiding the issues i gave you......

give us one way fermentation of grape juice could have been stopped 2000 years ago.

Did Louis Pasteur also invent a time machine?

[buflineks]

Still avoiding the issues i gave you......

No.

But you're still avoiding the truth and have as yet to come with serious credible scholarly work to back your point.

more google. Gotta love it.

You've avoided answering my question to you about Christ and drinking in during Passover.

It looks like you've also avoided the "gladdens mens heart" question as well.

Come on jmac, is this the best you can do. You haven't shown anything but sola intepreta.

[Hadassah]

This is nothing more than your "sola opinion".
You said I gave no proof, yet I gave the implications of Jesus making fermented wine for the wedding guests, yet you simply disregarded them. Would Jesus violate Hab 2:15 and sin? No explanation was given by you how Jesus was manifesting His glory by causing people sin thru drunkenness. Jesus was God in the flesh and does God tempt people to sin thru drunkenness according to James? Or do men sin thru their own lust to drink? I gave information from a Greek scholar [Vine] how the verb drunken in Eph 5 is an inceptive verb showing that being drunk is a process, i.e., drunkenness begins with the first drink, not the last. I also showed how Paul contrasted 'sober' to 'drunken', that sober means to abstain(nephalism), that one cannot be at the same time a social drinker and abstaining, one is either sober or drunken, yet again, this was disregarded. Do you deny that the bible uses the English word "wine" when referring to grape juice? Some want to say it's just my interpretation, that is just another way to avoid the issues.
WIth a simply google search, you can find they did have ways to keep grape juice from fermenting. Any serious bible student would know the bible condemns social drinking and would not try and make a sinner out of Jesus in order to try and justify their own sinful habits.
Can you list reasons for the Christian to "social drink"? What good comes from it, what example/influence does it have, how does it promote the gospel of Christ, how does it save souls, how does it help others? The fact is, it does "nothing" whatsoever good for the Christian or the for the cause of Christ, it can only bring about harm.

so, the Jews were wrong, then?

[Apatriot]

Here's one of many....

http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/books/wine_in_the_bible/3.html


Aquinas states that while it's acceptable in an emergency to use unfermented wine, that shouldn't be the norm.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4074.htm#article5

[Marleysdaddy]

What good comes from it, what example/influence does it have... The fact is, it does "nothing" whatsoever good for the Christian or the for the cause of Christ, it can only bring about harm.

Not true...Symposia in Athens led to many great philosophical ideas, brilliant works of literature, etc.

[Hadassah]

Aquinas states that while it's acceptable in an emergency to use unfermented wine, that shouldn't be the norm.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4074.htm#article5

Now, now, you shouldn't use Aquinas to support your position. He's one of the evvvvbil Katholiks, you know, and therefore, wrong. :shifty:

[Reeder]

Alchohol can impair judgement. Would there be any alchoholics in the world if they had not first took it "in moderation?" Its just like smoking, drugs, pornography, etc.......How do people become addicted to these things?......they try it once, and it builds from there.

1 Thes. 5: 22

22 Abstain from all appearance of evil.


Why risk bringing yourself closer to the line? Why not just abstain altogether?

Bump

[JMSeeker]

I'm sure there are other threads like this, but I'm too lazy to go back and search. I know it is a sin to be drunk. But is it a sin to drink? This can be a touchy subject, I've seen believers get downright mad and want to fight each other over this. I'm just curious how others believe. Personally, I'll have a drink on occasion and I don't feel that this has a positive or negative effect on my relationship with Christ. What do y'all think?

The bible uses the word wine in many places. There are many who say that the word wine in the bible is referring to grape juice, however this cannot be true for two reasons.
First the word "wine" in the bible is most often translated from the greek word "oinos" which means "to effervese." To efferevse means to bubble and roll. We don't use the word effervese much today but if you look on the side of an Alka-seltzer package it says that Alka-seltzer is an effervescent. that is what the word means. It was used to refer to wine because this is what the liquid does as it goes through the fermentation process; it bubbles and rolls. A liquid that has not gone through this process cannot be legitimately called "oinos" or wine.
The second resaon has to do with the Jewish feast of Passover. There is a tradition in the feast that requires wine to be served. This could not have been grape juice because the jewish feast of the passover is in the spring and grapes are harvested in the fall of the year. The Israelites had no means of preserving grape juice over the winter without fermentation taking place. Some say that the Israelites could have used a process of the Phoenecians wherein the grapes were dried and saved over the winter and re-hydrated for use in the Spring. This is however purely speculation. There is no evidence that the Jews ever used such a process notr that they borrowed any such technology from the Phoeneicians.

[Thank you Troops]

Bump


I will accept that. Thank you.

[Tucson Jim]

The bible uses the word wine in many places. There are many who say that the word wine in the bible is referring to grape juice, however this cannot be true for two reasons.
First the word "wine" in the bible is most often translated from the greek word "oinos" which means "to effervese." To efferevse means to bubble and roll. We don't use the word effervese much today but if you look on the side of an Alka-seltzer package it says that Alka-seltzer is an effervescent. that is what the word means. It was used to refer to wine because this is what the liquid does as it goes through the fermentation process; it bubbles and rolls. A liquid that has not gone through this process cannot be legitimately called "oinos" or wine.
The second resaon has to do with the Jewish feast of Passover. There is a tradition in the feast that requires wine to be served. This could not have been grape juice because the jewish feast of the passover is in the spring and grapes are harvested in the fall of the year. The Israelites had no means of preserving grape juice over the winter without fermentation taking place. Some say that the Israelites could have used a process of the Phoenecians wherein the grapes were dried and saved over the winter and re-hydrated for use in the Spring. This is however purely speculation. There is no evidence that the Jews ever used such a process notr that they borrowed any such technology from the Phoeneicians.

I'll drink to that!

[Reeder]

The bible uses the word wine in many places. There are many who say that the word wine in the bible is referring to grape juice, however this cannot be true for two reasons.
First the word "wine" in the bible is most often translated from the greek word "oinos" which means "to effervese." To efferevse means to bubble and roll. We don't use the word effervese much today but if you look on the side of an Alka-seltzer package it says that Alka-seltzer is an effervescent. that is what the word means. It was used to refer to wine because this is what the liquid does as it goes through the fermentation process; it bubbles and rolls. A liquid that has not gone through this process cannot be legitimately called "oinos" or wine.
The second resaon has to do with the Jewish feast of Passover. There is a tradition in the feast that requires wine to be served. This could not have been grape juice because the jewish feast of the passover is in the spring and grapes are harvested in the fall of the year. The Israelites had no means of preserving grape juice over the winter without fermentation taking place. Some say that the Israelites could have used a process of the Phoenecians wherein the grapes were dried and saved over the winter and re-hydrated for use in the Spring. This is however purely speculation. There is no evidence that the Jews ever used such a process notr that they borrowed any such technology from the Phoeneicians.

Putting all the Greek translations and what not aside......is there any good that can come of drinking alchohol? And I'm not talking about using alchohol for medical purposes.....I'm talking about social drinking. IMHO, it only brings the drinker closer to the chance of becoming drunk......closer to having impaired judgement.......closer to drunk driving, or out-of-control behavior, etc.

[Gospel Checker]

Apparently, you CAN get drunk on wine as mentioned in the bible.

Genesis 9:21 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=9&verse=21&version=9&context=verse)
And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.

1 Samuel 1:14 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=9&chapter=1&verse=14&version=9&context=verse)
And Eli said unto her, How long wilt thou be drunken? put away thy wine from thee.

Jeremiah 23:9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=30&chapter=23&verse=9&version=9&context=verse)
Mine heart within me is broken because of the prophets; all my bones shake; I am like a drunken man, and like a man whom wine hath overcome, because of the LORD, and because of the words of his holiness.

Ephesians 5:18 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=56&chapter=5&verse=18&version=9&context=verse)
And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;

[Marleysdaddy]

Alchohol can impair judgement. Would there be any alchoholics in the world if they had not first took it "in moderation?" Its just like smoking, drugs, pornography, etc.......How do people become addicted to these things?......they try it once, and it builds from there.

No...people with tendencies toward addiction try it once and things build from there...some of us can use potentially addictive things but not let them rule our lives. I had my first alcoholic drink over 10 years ago, and I have never once let alcohol affect my personal life, my education, my profession, my relationships...nothing...

[Reeder]

No...people with tendencies toward addiction try it once and things build from there...some of us can use potentially addictive things but not let them rule our lives. I had my first alcoholic drink over 10 years ago, and I have never once let alcohol affect my personal life, my education, my profession, my relationships...nothing...

And there isn't the slightest chance that it ever will? If not, how do you know this?

But you said it well....alchohol is one of those "potentially addictive things." Why partake of anything that is "potentially addictive?"

[JMSeeker]

Putting all the Greek translations and what not aside......is there any good that can come of drinking alchohol? And I'm not talking about using alchohol for medical purposes.....I'm talking about social drinking. IMHO, it only brings the drinker closer to the chance of becoming drunk......closer to having impaired judgement.......closer to drunk driving, or out-of-control behavior, etc.

The bible says (mercifully):
"Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts." Prov 31:6

And that "[God sends] wine that maketh glad the heart of man, and oil to make his face to shine, and bread which strengtheneth man's heart." Psa 104:15

God gives us many things to enjoy, but not to abuse. He gives us food for sustenance, but warns us against gluttony. He gives us the ability to love, but warns us against adultery. He gives us wine to make our hearts glad, but warns us against drunkeness and excess.

[Reeder]

The bible says (mercifully):
"Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts." Prov 31:6

And that "[God sends] wine that maketh glad the heart of man, and oil to make his face to shine, and bread which strengtheneth man's heart." Psa 104:15

God gives us many things to enjoy, but not to abuse. He gives us food for sustenance, but warns us against gluttony. He gives us the ability to love, but warns us against adultery. He gives us wine to make our hearts glad, but warns us against drunkeness and excess.

And what exactly is "excess?" Where does one draw the line? Avoiding it all together seems to be the best solution to avoid "drunkeness."

[RayMan]

And there isn't the slightest chance that it ever will? If not, how do you know this?

But you said it well....alchohol is one of those "potentially addictive things." Why partake of anything that is "potentially addictive?"

I believe Disneyland falls into that category for certain personality types. :D

[Reeder]

I believe Disneyland falls into that category for certain personality types. :D

:cry:

I don't know that I could EVER give up such an addiction. :D

[JMSeeker]

And what exactly is "excess?" Where does one draw the line? Avoiding it all together seems to be the best solution to avoid "drunkeness."

You are entitled to feel that way and I would encourage you (and anyone else) to do so, but that isn't the biblical position.

[JMSeeker]

And what exactly is "excess?" Where does one draw the line? Avoiding it all together seems to be the best solution to avoid "drunkeness."

That is a very good place to draw the line. It's just not the place where the bible draws it.

[outdamyboat]

:cry:

I don't know that I could EVER give up such an addiction. :D

I prefer Disney World...as my drug of choice :mrgreen:

I was there 2 summers ago thru a hurricane it was absolutely magical...like a 'simulation' ride.

Hey Reeder, if you see the Green Army Men from Toy Story could you get a picture of them for me....gosh, I love those guys!

[Reeder]

I prefer Disney World...as my drug of choice :mrgreen:

I was there 2 summers ago thru a hurricane it was absolutely magical...like a 'simulation' ride.

Hey Reeder, if you see the Green Army Men from Toy Story could you get a picture of them for me....gosh, I love those guys!

Yeah, Disneyworld is second on my list. There's just something about DisneyLAND that is.....well.....addicting. :mrgreen:

And "YES," I will most certainly take a picture of the green army men.

[outdamyboat]

Yeah, Disneyworld is second on my list. There's just something about DisneyLAND that is.....well.....addicting. :mrgreen:

And "YES," I will most certainly take a picture of the green army men.

Thanks...but can you spend a whole week at Disneyland? I mean OF COURSE...but I haven't been to Disneyland in a long time and 2 days was plenty (over 20 yrs :eek:) I was umm...5 yrs old when I was there; I think..:liar: :angel:

I think I've deprived my girls too....I better re-think my vacation plans for this summer. Anaheim or Orlando..hmm...

[Reeder]

Thanks...but can you spend a whole week at Disneyland? I mean OF COURSE...but I haven't been to Disneyland in a long time (over 20 yrs :eek:) I was umm...5 yrs old when I was there; I think..:liar: :angel:

Wow, you're closer to my age than I first thought. :mrgreen:

Yeah, Disneyland has changed drastically in the past 20 years. You would probably hardly even recognize it.

[CID_0687]

Please show me a link to that. There are methods to do that, but none that are ancient. Without refrigeration, fermentation of grape juice begins in 6-12 hrs.
That is true. My grandmother use to make her famous fruit cake. She would cut up the fruit and place in a large mason jar and sit it in the utility room. After a couple of weeks you could get drunk just off the fumes. The only way this processed would've been slown down would be by refrigeration, and they didn't have that in Jesus' day.

[Marleysdaddy]

And there isn't the slightest chance that it ever will? If not, how do you know this?

No...there is not even the slightest chance that it ever will. I know this because there are other things that rule my life...the love I have for my spouse and daughter, the love they have for me, my love of nature, my love of books, my love of music...these are all things with which healthy happy people fill their lives ...unhappy, unhealthy people try to cope with their lack of those things by substituting things which eventually lead to an addiction...be it a drug, gambling, world of warcraft, etc....we should take pity on these people and help them, not look down our noses at them and dismiss them as addicts (Jesus would have been hanging out with them)

[Marleysdaddy]

Thanks...but can you spend a whole week at Disneyland? I mean OF COURSE...but I haven't been to Disneyland in a long time and 2 days was plenty (over 20 yrs :eek:) I was umm...5 yrs old when I was there; I think..:liar: :angel:

I think I've deprived my girls too....I better re-think my vacation plans for this summer. Anaheim or Orlando..hmm...

But Disney is evil because they give health benefits to their gay employees' partners...OMg! :D

[Frazzled]

Here Reeder....I've been saving this just for you!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v388/scrappydo89012/smilie4.gif

[Marleysdaddy]

Here Reeder....I've been saving this just for you!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v388/scrappydo89012/smilie4.gif

May I use that?

[Frazzled]

Enjoy!

[Semi-Sweet]

And what exactly is "excess?" Where does one draw the line? Avoiding it all together seems to be the best solution to avoid "drunkeness."

We can avoid it this is true but, we cannot bind our scruples on others. It is commonly urged that it is not expedient to drink any wine because it can become habit forming so easily. I respect that argument and the person who chooses to drink none. Some persons, because of their physical and psychological nature, must avoid all alcohol because they are alcoholics by nature even if not by practice. But most any good thing can lead to sin if we do not exercise self-control, whether it be eating, sleeping, talking, driving, taking sedatives, posting on Hannity, watching television, or most any other activity within our liberties.

We cannot abstain from life!

[outdamyboat]

We can avoid it this is true but, we cannot bind our scruples on others. It is commonly urged that it is not expedient to drink any wine because it can become habit forming so easily. I respect that argument and the person who chooses to drink none. Some persons, because of their physical and psychological nature, must avoid all alcohol because they are alcoholics by nature even if not by practice. But most any good thing can lead to sin if we do not exercise self-control, whether it be eating, sleeping, talking, driving, taking sedatives, posting on Hannity, watching television, or most any other activity within our liberties.

We cannot abstain from life!

Posting on Hannity...?:eek: oops. Really think ,so? :confused:

[Semi-Sweet]

Posting on Hannity...?:eek: oops. Really think ,so? :confused:

HAHAHAHA. . .Well at least I have to exercise self-control when I am posting on Hannity. It is easy to get angry and type hurtful words. :D

[hben]

I'm sure there are other threads like this, but I'm too lazy to go back and search. I know it is a sin to be drunk. But is it a sin to drink? This can be a touchy subject, I've seen believers get downright mad and want to fight each other over this. I'm just curious how others believe. Personally, I'll have a drink on occasion and I don't feel that this has a positive or negative effect on my relationship with Christ. What do y'all think?

The only passage that comes to mind is found in Romans where Paul speaks of abstaining from anything that may cause a brother to stumble or be offended.

Rom:14:21: It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.

[Hadassah]

and on that note....more bourbon anyone? :))

[Semi-Sweet]

The only passage that comes to mind is found in Romans where Paul speaks of abstaining from anything that may cause a brother to stumble or be offended.

Rom:14:21: It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.

I agree, drinking wine, or any other practice, is not needful or helpful if it causes someone else to sin. Concern for the weak brother constrained Paul to advise us not to allow our liberty to somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. Cause the weak to stumble, (not the pious to grumble. . .:D) I wonder if the righteous men throughout Bible history who drank wine were stumbling blocks or bad influences? Surely, concern for the weak did not take away liberty after the weak had been instructed and strengthened.

I can't drink wine, it causes me to have migraines, and they do cause me to stumble. . .

ETA. . . .I don't think Paul meant that others were not to have a good meal or drink wine for the rest of their lives.

[Reeder]

Here Reeder....I've been saving this just for you!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v388/scrappydo89012/smilie4.gif

I love it!! Thanks Frazz!

[CID_0687]

The only passage that comes to mind is found in Romans where Paul speaks of abstaining from anything that may cause a brother to stumble or be offended.

Rom:14:21: It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.
So no more ribeye steaks either? :((

[RayMan]

But Disney is evil because they give health benefits to their gay employees' partners...OMg! :D

As a long time native of the San Francisco Bay Area, I am shocked and appalled. :mrgreen:

[RayMan]

Yeah, Disneyworld is second on my list. There's just something about DisneyLAND that is.....well.....addicting. :mrgreen:

And "YES," I will most certainly take a picture of the green army men.

Disneyland is the REAL DEAL.

[Semi-Sweet]

So no more ribeye steaks either? :((

Only if a vegetarian is present and he is offended. :D

[CID_0687]

Only if a vegetarian is present and he is offended. :D
So don't drink in front of teatotlers or eat meat in front of vegetarians...got it!!

[RayMan]

So don't drink in front of teatotlers or eat meat in front of vegetarians...got it!!

When we have pizza lunches or such like at work we LOVE to mess with our token Vegetarian because we always have to order special for her. She is a great sport about it. Difference is that it is not a faith thing with her, just a dietary choice.

[CID_0687]

When we have pizza lunches or such like at work we LOVE to mess with our token Vegetarian because we always have to order special for her. She is a great sport about it. Difference is that it is not a faith thing with her, just a dietary choice.
The grocery store I use to be the assistant meat manager at had a vegetarian. Oddly enough he was also the produce manager. Some of the other guys in the meat market use to give him a really hard time at break. They would walk in the breakroom with rubber glove full of blood threatening to dump it in his veggie soup or whatever. He finally had enough one day and came in the market while the two guys were at lunch, and shoved rotten peaches and bannanas in their coats and hats. It was hillarious.

[RayMan]

The grocery store I use to be the assistant meat manager at had a vegetarian. Oddly enough he was also the produce manager. Some of the other guys in the meat market use to give him a really hard time at break. They would walk in the breakroom with rubber glove full of blood threatening to dump it in his veggie soup or whatever. He finally had enough one day and came in the market while the two guys were at lunch, and shoved rotten peaches and bannanas in their coats and hats. It was hillarious.

Just 'cuz they don't eat meat don't mean they can't clean your clock!

[CID_0687]

Just 'cuz they don't eat meat don't mean they can't clean your clock!
Yeah, I know right?! I never understood the whole let's make fun of someone cause they have different habits than me idea. I prefer to find deeper reasons to pick on people. I'll tell you about the dairy manager one day, and why I hated him so...(his words not mine)

[jmacvols]

either way... whoever says that alcohol is not ok in moderation is wrong.

It isn't alcohol in moderation, the social drinkers are looking for approval of drunkenness in moderation.

[jmacvols]

The Tanach looks down on drunkenness... but also states that wine gladdens mens hearts.... which suggests drinking in some amounts is permissible.... which says to me that drinking does not = drunk.



The question is this: at what point is one drunk?

A----------------------------------------------B

If "Joe" began drinking at point A and quit drinking a point B (because he passed out), exactly where along the line did he become drunk, and why that point and not another?

Either Paul is wrong, or the Greek is wrong.

Neither is wrong. There are many verses that Paul and Peter condemned drinking, ie, condemned anything but abstinence

[jmacvols]

Somehow, I don't think jmac will change his mind . . .

Why should he when the bible plainly condemns social drinking.

[jmacvols]

Or jmac's interpretation of Paul is wrong.

Well then, what is your interpretation of Paul in Eph 5? The information I gave was from Vine, not my own, that the verb drunken is inceptive, that Paul is condemning the process of becoming drunk, therefore drunkenness begins with the first drink. Or how about in Thess. where Paul contrasts sober (abstinence) to drunken. How can one be both at the same time?

[jmacvols]

No.

But you're still avoiding the truth and have as yet to come with serious credible scholarly work to back your point.

more google. Gotta love it.

You've avoided answering my question to you about Christ and drinking in during Passover.

It looks like you've also avoided the "gladdens mens heart" question as well.

Come on jmac, is this the best you can do. You haven't shown anything but sola intepreta.

Yes, you have avoided answering the consequences of Christ serving alcoholic wine at Cana.

Jesus kept the OT law perfectly. At Passover, nothing with yeast was allowed, Exod. 12. Even though other Jews may violate this Jesus did not. At the last supper, Jesus provided fruit of the vine and unleaven bread. You want to question the liquid content of the cup, are you going to be consistent and question if the bread also contained leaven? Nowhere in the gospel accounts or in Corinthian epistle is oinos used pertaining to the last supper. The writers deliberately used the phrase "fruit of the vine" and avoided oinos. Had they used oinos, which can mean fermented wine, that would help your case, but as noted, they deliberately avoided this word and used "fruit of the vine". They probably did this so people would not make the mistake of thinking that the "cup" contained alcoholic wine. If you don't think this is true, then why did they not use oinos? They obviously knew the word existed for they used it in other passages. The phrase 'fruit of the vine' means that which is born of the vine, that which comes naturally from the vine. The wine one buys at the package store does not come naturally from the vine, it is a processed by-product.

[jmacvols]

so, the Jews were wrong, then?

Wrong about what exactly?

[jmacvols]

Not true...Symposia in Athens led to many great philosophical ideas, brilliant works of literature, etc.

Absolutely nothing good comes from drinking. How many of these Greek philosopers were Christians and believed in the one true God? Where did Paul ever say their philisophical meanderings are wothwhile and can save?

[jmacvols]

Now, now, you shouldn't use Aquinas to support your position. He's one of the evvvvbil Katholiks, you know, and therefore, wrong. :shifty:

You said it, not me. :shifty:

[Harmonious]

The question is this: at what point is one drunk?

A----------------------------------------------B

If "Joe" began drinking at point A and quit drinking a point B (because he passed out), exactly where along the line did he become drunk, and why that point and not another?


That is different for every person, as each person has a different blood/alcohol tolerance ratio.

And that was something that was given to be understood in terms of common sense. A person (who is not an alcoholic) knows how much alcohol he or she can have to make him or her a little tipsy. And a person knows how much alcohol he or she can have that will push him or herself over the limit.

And if a person doesn't know... It doesn't take much to find out.

While it might be easier to simply abstain, and that isn't necessarily a bad thing, it is by no means necessary. People can indeed figure it out, and either enjoy it or not.

[tnt]

It does say to abstain from strong drink which I think means leave the Irish Whiskey alone. :D



One of the sad misnomers is that many interpret the wine of those days to be like the wine of today and it is vastly different. Grapes; as with most fruits, when sqeezed for its juice does have a natural fermentation that is triggered by the sugars. Todays wine takes all those natural sugars and then adds many times more to it as a result you get a higher fermentation level which translates into higher alcohol content.

That is only true of 'fortified' wines (think Mad Dog 20/20).

Wine does not have sugar added.

[Harmonious]

Why should he when the bible plainly condemns social drinking.

The OT doesn't. But then again, what WE consider social drinking, and what people in ancient times considered social drinking were very different things.

You are jaded with the concept of fresh drinking water. In ancient times, people might have been more wary to simply drink the water with who knows what in it. But wine... They knew exactly what was in it. Even if it was diluted with water, the wine would knock out the harmful content of what might have been in the water.

Drunkenness was condemned. But actual drinking of wine was not condemned.

Do you know that since the advent of the Book of Esther, it became a custom (if not precisely a law) for Jews to drink alcohol on Purim such that "they confuse 'Cursed is Haman' and 'Blessed is Mordechai?'" It is true. And it all started because of a party thrown by Achashverosh, king of Persia. The fact that the Jews were miraculously saved from Haman's machinations was undoubted, but the miracles were hidden.

Since there is a dictum that says, "When the wine goes in, the truth comes out," it makes sense that on a holiday where the hiddenness of the hand of God was plain, it equally makes sense that it is a time to let a little bit looser with the inhibitions than at other times, and to let a little alcohol get a person disoriented enough that a person would have to concentrate to properly say "Cursed is Haman" and "Blessed is Mordechai."

Some good CAN come from drinking. But it takes self-control. And if you know anything about Jewish law, it is ALL about self-control.

[Harmonious]

Yes, you have avoided answering the consequences of Christ serving alcoholic wine at Cana.

Jesus kept the OT law perfectly. No, actually he didn't. But I'll leave that for another time.

At Passover, nothing with yeast was allowed, Exod. 12. Even though other Jews may violate this Jesus did not.What on earth would give you the idea that they did, at that time period?

[Semi-Sweet]

Why should he when the bible plainly condemns social drinking.

In initiating the Lord's Supper, Jesus used the cup which was a part of the Passover meal in Luke 22:14. It was too early in the spring for fresh grape juice.

Following the pattern of Jesus and the apostles, the Corinthian disciples still had a meal as the setting for their Lord's Supper.

Abuse of the meal resulted in the drunkenness of some: "For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal, and one is hungry and another is drunk. What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in?" 1 Cor. 11:21. It was fermented.

Even though some got drunk, Paul did not forbid that any of them drink. He said that they had homes to do it in.

Some were pushing ahead of others and eating and drinking their fill, and were not worried that others were hungry and thirsty. Paul's reprimand was not about their food or drink, but instead, their un-Christianlike manner.

[Reeder]

That is different for every person, as each person has a different blood/alcohol tolerance ratio.

And that was something that was given to be understood in terms of common sense. A person (who is not an alcoholic) knows how much alcohol he or she can have to make him or her a little tipsy. And a person knows how much alcohol he or she can have that will push him or herself over the limit.

And if a person doesn't know... It doesn't take much to find out.

While it might be easier to simply abstain, and that isn't necessarily a bad thing, it is by no means necessary. People can indeed figure it out, and either enjoy it or not.


How does a person "find out" what their limit is without going over that limit? You would have to become "drunk" to know what your limit is. In other words, you'd have to break that law (or commandment or whatever you want to call it) before you could "find out" your limit. It sounds kind of like the saying that goes "try it once, it won't hurt you."

The ONLY way to keep that commandment is to abstain from alchohol.

[Reeder]

In initiating the Lord's Supper, Jesus used the cup which was a part of the Passover meal in Luke 22:14. It was too early in the spring for fresh grape juice.

Following the pattern of Jesus and the apostles, the Corinthian disciples still had a meal as the setting for their Lord's Supper.

Abuse of the meal resulted in the drunkenness of some: "For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal, and one is hungry and another is drunk. " What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in?" 1 Cor. 11:21. It was fermented.

Even though some got drunk, Paul did not forbid that any of them drink. He said that they had homes to do it in.

Some were pushing ahead of others and eating and drinking their fill, and were not worried that others were hungry and thirsty. Paul's reprimand was not about their food or drink, but instead, their un-Christianlike manner.


But drinking, in many instances is the cause of "un-Christianlike" mannerisms. Why risk it?

[Semi-Sweet]

But drinking, in many instances is the cause of "un-Christianlike" mannerisms. Why risk it?

I think that each individual must be fully persuaded in their own mind. I am not advocating strong drink, I do not use it myself, but what does the scripture plainly say?

Even though Paul says that "the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking" Romans 14:17, many today would contradict him by saying that one who drinks cannot remain in the kingdom. And in defending the personal rights of Barnabas and himself, Paul asked the question, "Have we no right to eat and to drink?" 1 Cor. 9:4.

Paul said, "It is right not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that makes your brother stumble" Romans 14:21. But he did not indicate that no one could properly eat meat or drink wine forevrmore. Abstinence was considered to be needful only when someone's faith would be jeopardized.

Paul indicates that a person might glorify God in his drinking: "So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God" 1 Cor. 10:31.

I am saying that I believe that it is a Christian liberty, and we have no right to bind our scruples on another. I am sure all true believers know the difference between drinking and being drunken.

[Reeder]

I think that each individual must be fully persuaded in their own mind. I am not advocating strong drink, I do not use it myself, but what does the scripture plainly say?

Even though Paul says that "the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking" Romans 14:17, many today would contradict him by saying that one who drinks cannot remain in the kingdom. And in defending the personal rights of Barnabas and himself, Paul asked the question, "Have we no right to eat and to drink?" 1 Cor. 9:4.

Paul said, "It is right not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that makes your brother stumble" Romans 14:21. But he did not indicate that no one could properly eat meat or drink wine forevrmore. Abstinence was considered to be needful only when someone's faith would be jeopardized.

Paul indicates that a person might glorify God in his drinking: "So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God" 1 Cor. 10:31.

I am saying that I believe that it is a Christian liberty, and we have no right to bind our scruples on another. I am sure all true believers know the difference between drinking and being drunken.

I'm not trying to judge anyone. If I've come across that way (to anyone here), I apologize. I'm trying to focus on what alchohol CAN do to a person. It can and has destroyed countless lives - and is currently destroying thousands more. Something so destructive, and dangerous, IMHO, cannot be acceptable to God.

I understand that someone may be able to drink one glass of wine, and not become "drunk." But I also see nothing....absolutely nothing GOOD that can come of drinking - not even one swig.

That is my opinion. That is how I see it. I won't judge anyone because they drink. Some of my best friends LOVE to drink (most of them aren't religious, however). I simply see it as nothing more than a way to lead to drunkeness, unhappiness, and possibly death.....nothing more.

[VA-165 Boomer]

It does say to abstain from strong drink which I think means leave the Irish Whiskey alone. :D



One of the sad misnomers is that many interpret the wine of those days to be like the wine of today and it is vastly different. Grapes; as with most fruits, when sqeezed for its juice does have a natural fermentation that is triggered by the sugars. Todays wine takes all those natural sugars and then adds many times more to it as a result you get a higher fermentation level which translates into higher alcohol content.

I think that is scotch that we should abstain from. Irish whiskey on the other hand is defined in the constitution of Ireland. Its the law mind you.:D

[Semi-Sweet]

I'm not trying to judge anyone. If I've come across that way (to anyone here), I apologize. I'm trying to focus on what alchohol CAN do to a person. It can and has destroyed countless lives - and is currently destroying thousands more. Something so destructive, and dangerous, IMHO, cannot be acceptable to God.

I understand that someone may be able to drink one glass of wine, and not become "drunk." But I also see nothing....absolutely nothing GOOD that can come of drinking - not even one swig.

That is my opinion. That is how I see it. I won't judge anyone because they drink. Some of my best friends LOVE to drink (most of them aren't religious, however). I simply see it as nothing more than a way to lead to drunkeness, unhappiness, and possibly death.....nothing more.

Knowing you, I am sure you only want what is best for others. As for the good, heart doctors do stress the use of wine. I know two heart surgeons whose drink of choice is moonshine. :D

[VA-165 Boomer]

That is only true of 'fortified' wines (think Mad Dog 20/20).

Wine does not have sugar added.

Not fine wines anyway.

[Reeder]

Knowing you, I am sure you only want what is best for others. As for the good, heart doctors do stress the use of wine. I know two heart surgeons whose drink of choice is moonshine. :D

I'm sure thats what most of us want on these forums, including those who don't see eye-to-eye with me on this subject. And I'm sure some heart surgeons stress the use of wine. I know of atleast one very good heart surgeon that stresses the opposite.

Grapejuice on the other hand.....Mmmmmmmmmmmmmm. :)

[jmacvols]

In initiating the Lord's Supper, Jesus used the cup which was a part of the Passover meal in Luke 22:14. It was too early in the spring for fresh grape juice.

They had ways to preserve grape juice to keep it from fermenting, it could be boiled down to a syrup or sealed in containers and stored in a cool place. [I provided a link for this earlier]

Following the pattern of Jesus and the apostles, the Corinthian disciples still had a meal as the setting for their Lord's Supper.

They were perverting the Lord's Supper by making a common meal of it.

Abuse of the meal resulted in the drunkenness of some: "For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal, and one is hungry and another is drunk. What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in?" 1 Cor. 11:21. It was fermented.

Even though some got drunk, Paul did not forbid that any of them drink. He said that they had homes to do it in.

Some were pushing ahead of others and eating and drinking their fill, and were not worried that others were hungry and thirsty. Paul's reprimand was not about their food or drink, but instead, their un-Christianlike manner.

Would being drunk be an unchristian-like manner? Yes it would, so in condemning unchristian-like manners Paul would be condemning drunkennness.

But besides this, you say "it was fermented" and "Paul did not forbid any of them drink".
Paul condemns drunkenness in other passages. In 1 Cor 6, Paul had already told them the drunkards would not inherit the kingdom of heaven and in chapter 5 Paul said not to asssociate with a drunkard who is called a "brother". Paul would not turn around here and approve of drinking and/or getting drunk at home with fermented wine.

Back in chpt 6, Paul said drunkards will not inherit the kingdom of heaven, then he says 'such WERE some of you, but now ye are washed, ye are sanctified...' Paul could not say they WERE drunkards if they still are. Hence I do not think the underlying Greek word for "drunk" in this passage means "intoxicated" but it means "full". It can mean 'filled to be full' or satiated. In context, there were those that had plenty and others had nothing to eat or drink. Then Paul says "one is hungry (emtpy) while another is drunk (full). Paul is contrasting "hungry" to "drunk", there was those that were under-full and some over-full. Overindulgence in eating and drinking is what is being condemned here, not intoxication, for Paul did not say ye have homes to get drunk in. Paul is in no way approving drinking fermented drinks. As I stated here, I do not believe the drinks the Coritnthians were drinking in chp 11 was fermented but unfermented. That they were drunk not in the intoxicated sense but in the sense they had their fill, had all they could hold in.

[jmacvols]

[QUOTE=Semi-Sweet;26975271]Duplicate[QUOTE/]

[Hadassah]

I'm not trying to judge anyone. If I've come across that way (to anyone here), I apologize. I'm trying to focus on what alchohol CAN do to a person. It can and has destroyed countless lives - and is currently destroying thousands more. Something so destructive, and dangerous, IMHO, cannot be acceptable to God.

I understand that someone may be able to drink one glass of wine, and not become "drunk." But I also see nothing....absolutely nothing GOOD that can come of drinking - not even one swig.

That is my opinion. That is how I see it. I won't judge anyone because they drink. Some of my best friends LOVE to drink (most of them aren't religious, however). I simply see it as nothing more than a way to lead to drunkeness, unhappiness, and possibly death.....nothing more.



IMO, it's not wine, or other alcoholic beverages that are the problem. It's the addictive personality that's the problem. One can be addicted to anything. (even Hannity forums. :whistle: :shifty: )

[Darkblade]

in biblical times wine and perhaps beer were about the only safe liquid to drink much of the time. water was often contaminated or poisonous. wine was part of the last supper. further christ turned water into wine. when did christ ever do produce any unclean or prohibited thing? there are prohibitions or rather chastisements for being a drunkard. but not against drinking per se. though even then there were times when they were basically told to eat drink and make merry (no i do not mean the one with the hand writing on the wall: for tomorrow thou shalt surely die.) festivals feasts and so forth.

[Reeder]

One can be addicted to anything. (even Hannity forums. :whistle: :shifty: )

Aint THAT the truth. :mrgreen:

[Gidon]

No, actually he didn't. But I'll leave that for another time.

What on earth would give you the idea that they did, at that time period?





Yeshua fulfilled the Law. He rejected man made Talmudic traditions that were not in the Tanakh. He is the blessed pesach Lamb.

[Semi-Sweet]

They had ways to preserve grape juice to keep it from fermenting, it could be boiled down to a syrup or sealed in containers and stored in a cool place. [I provided a link for this earlier]

I will take a part of your post now and then reply to the rest later. Vacuum seal bottles are a modern invention. They had no means for keeping fresh grape juice, but by fermenting it, they could keep it as wine. I have read some fantastic claims that the Jews had some means of preserving "unfermented wine." If they could do it, why can't we? If someone will demonstrate that grape juice can be kept in any desirable state for drinking from summer until Passover in the spring, without the benefit of cold, vacuum seal, or fermentation, he will have a plausible argument. To say that they drank diluted wine does not meet the isue for, whether it be 2% or 16% alcohol, it still would be alcoholic.

New, sweet wine was alcoholic. (Acts 2:12-15). . ."All were amazed and perplexed, saying to one another, "What does this mean?" But others sneered and said, "They are filled with new wine." "But Peter, standing with the eleven, raised his voice and addressed them, "Men of Judea and all who live in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and listen to what I say. Indeed, these are not drunk, as you suppose, for it is only nine o'clock in the morning."

[Semi-Sweet]

They were perverting the Lord's Supper by making a common meal of it.

Matthew records: "Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, 'Take, eat; this is my body,' And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, 'Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgivness of sins'" Matt. 26"26-28. Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:17-19. This was shared among the apostles only, and only on that one weekday evening. (They were having a meal) He did not tell them to continue the practice or to teach others to do it. We read nothing more about the Lord's Supper until we reach Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians.

What about Acts 2:42 and Acts 20:7? In concluding his record of the Pentecost event Luke states, "And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers" 2:42. It has been strongly contended that the "breaking of bread" refers to the Lord's Supper. That could be, but do you know for sure? 'Breaking of bread' was a common idiom of speech meaning to eat a meal together. A few lines after mentioning the breaking of bread, Luke wrote, "And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they partook of food with glad and generous hearts. Here he plainly identifies it as partaking of food. Did Luke give the idiom two different meanings in such a short time? They were breaking this bread day by day, not week by week, and it was being done in their homes. If you think that refers to the Lord's Supper, don't try that in your home or the elders will be on your case. . . . . :D

[RayMan]

Aint THAT the truth. :mrgreen:


Calm down there D-Lander.

[CID_0687]

It isn't alcohol in moderation, the social drinkers are looking for approval of drunkenness in moderation.
I have to disagree. I drink on occasion. But not to get drunk. I can have a glass or two of bourbon and coke, or a couple of beers one night and it may be months before I have another drink. I don't need approval for drunkeness because I'm not a drunkard. I do know people that will be looking over their shoulders when they're walking in the liquour store to make sure the preacher isn't driving down the road. That's just silly.

[JMSeeker]

The question is this: at what point is one drunk?

A----------------------------------------------B

If "Joe" began drinking at point A and quit drinking a point B (because he passed out), exactly where along the line did he become drunk, and why that point and not another?



Neither is wrong. There are many verses that Paul and Peter condemned drinking, ie, condemned anything but abstinence

The ancient Pharasee's asked a similar question. The bible clearly stated that the sabbath day was to be a holy convocation unto the Lord and "that shalt do no work on the sabbath day".
The problem is, the bible doesn't define what "work" is. So what is "work". Well, since the bible wasn't clear the religious leaders of the day decided that it was up to them to define what work was and instruct the people. They decided that if you were a physician you could keep a patient from getting any worse on a sabbath day, but you could do nothing to improve the patient's condition or you were "working". You could not carry the weight of more than two dried figs. You could not carry your lamp from one side of your room to the other on the sabbath day. You could not walk more than 7/10th of one mile. (all from the Talmud).
The results of their diligent study and research into the matter, in their honest attempt to keep from breaking God's command, was that they twice accused Jesus and His deciples of breaking the Sabbath day law.
So what exactly is drunk? Since the bible isn't clear, we should let our religious leaders decide, don't you think?

[JMSeeker]

IMO, it's not wine, or other alcoholic beverages that are the problem. It's the addictive personality that's the problem. One can be addicted to anything. (even Hannity forums. :whistle: :shifty: )

(Note: my use of the term men is for mankind, not males)
There is no sin in a piece of rope, though men do hang themselves.
There is no sin in a knife, though men do cut themselves.
There is no sin in a bottle, though men do become drunk.
There is no sin in a gun, though men do commit murder.
Sin lies within the heart of man and not within the objects which he utilizes to express that sin.

[Ron Jon]

I'm sure there are other threads like this, but I'm too lazy to go back and search. I know it is a sin to be drunk. But is it a sin to drink? This can be a touchy subject, I've seen believers get downright mad and want to fight each other over this. I'm just curious how others believe. Personally, I'll have a drink on occasion and I don't feel that this has a positive or negative effect on my relationship with Christ. What do y'all think?"Always in moderation." That goes for just about everything we consume (including food since gluttony is a sin too).

[Ron Jon]

I have to disagree. I drink on occasion. But not to get drunk. I can have a glass or two of bourbon and coke, or a couple of beers one night and it may be months before I have another drink. I don't need approval for drunkeness because I'm not a drunkard. I do know people that will be looking over their shoulders when they're walking in the liquour store to make sure the preacher isn't driving down the road. That's just silly.I agree. Personally, I don't like the "drunk" feeling. Nausea is not a pleasant experience, imho.

[FoxGranadaChuck]

I have to disagree. I drink on occasion. But not to get drunk. I can have a glass or two of bourbon and coke, or a couple of beers one night and it may be months before I have another drink. I don't need approval for drunkeness because I'm not a drunkard. I do know people that will be looking over their shoulders when they're walking in the liquour store to make sure the preacher isn't driving down the road. That's just silly.


Especially if you are in a locale where the quality of the water is, shall we say, marginal at best. The nation of Mexico comes immediately to mind. There, you are essentially forced to drink alcohol in some form, unless you want to pay an arm, a leg, and three vital organs for a Coke!

The perspective that too many have concerning alcohol comes from the fact that we are spoiled Americans, who think that everyone else operates exactly as we do! We have the luxury of being able to turn the kitchen tap and have clean water pour out. This is simply NOT TRUE for most countries!

[Hadassah]

I agree. Personally, I don't like the "drunk" feeling. Nausea is not a pleasant experience, imho.

I'm personally not a fan of "worshipping the porcelin god" either.

[FoxGranadaChuck]

I come into this discussion with the thinking that I do not like the taste of any alcoholic beverage whatsoever. The extent of my drinking comes from a small swallow of wine that I have at the Lord's Supper at church, which would probably have some in this forum reeling right now! Fortunately, that is only a very small swallow.....

[Harmonious]

How does a person "find out" what their limit is without going over that limit? You would have to become "drunk" to know what your limit is. In other words, you'd have to break that law (or commandment or whatever you want to call it) before you could "find out" your limit. It sounds kind of like the saying that goes "try it once, it won't hurt you."

The ONLY way to keep that commandment is to abstain from alchohol.

It isn't actually a law to not be drunk, per se. It is more of a state that we are supposed to avoid.

There are things that Jews are supposed to avoid, so as not to become "a boor by permission of the Torah." Maimonides actually describes how a person can live to excess such that while it isn't forbidden by the letter of any law, it is disgusting and we can tell that it is against the spirit of the law.

Drunkenness (that isn't within the specific confines of where and when on Purim) is one such thing.

If a person drinks two cups of wine and finds that his or her limit was actually one cup, then it makes sense that from then on, the person should not drink more than one cup of wine at a time.

I've been drunk four times in my life. And I remember each incident, and decided that I never wanted to repeat it. And that was besides the fact that I wouldn't want to be from religious conviction.

Once, I was in fourth grade, and I had a protracted case of strep throat. I was in pain, and nothing was helping. I don't remember whether it was my father or my mother who gave me a shot of Arak, diluted with close to a liter of water, but my father was insistent that I drink the whole thing. I did. I don't remember if I was in pain anymore, but by that time, I simply didn't care. I giggled as my father picked me up and put me in bed. And that was the end of that story.

The second time, I was in tenth grade, and it was Purim. It was an appropriate time and place, and I had adult supervision. And they stopped me from overdoing it.

The third and fourth times were complete accidents on my part.

One year, when I was in high school (but I don't remember which year), my father had to work overtime during Passover. Therefore, he was not present at our Passover Seder. In high school, we had pressed on the general preference for using wine instead of grape juice at the Seder, and I decided that I was going to drink wine for all four cups.

This was good, but I didn't count on some of the other circumstances going on at the Seder. That year, my mother invited my brother's friend and his family. The fact is that they were Reformed, and had less patience for sitting and learning the way I would prefer a Seder to be run. The Seder was not gone through the way that is outlined in the Hagada (except loosely), and it was more of a "question/answer" deal. We were more or less done in about an hour. After the third cup, that was it for me. And I was thankful that my father was home for the other Seder, because I couldn't take another one like that.

The fourth time happened when I was in college. I was at home. Shabbat was an interesting time, because if no one chose to celebrate it with me, I celebrated myself. It was shortly after Passover. Therefore, we had lots of bottles of wine and grape juice about. I took a bottle of what appeared to be sparkling grape juice, and a 12 oz. glass. (I fully intended to drink grape juice.) I made Kiddush, or the benedictions of the day, and then I drank. It didn't taste right, and I thought that was because sparkling grape juice isn't as sweet as regular grape juice. So I figured that the quicker I drank it, the quicker I'd be done with it.

I didn't feel right, so I took a closer look at the bottle. It was in fact wine. I just downed three cups of wine. I felt ridiculous at my oversight. I laughed hysterically. I came to the family room where my parents were watching television, and I told them what I had done. They told me to pull out a futon and fall asleep.

I'm still not sure how I woke up the next morning on the top bunk of my bunkbed, but that isn't the point.

*************************************************

The point is that in none of these four (and final) times that I was drunk did I sin.

In none of these times did I do something which I should not have done. And two of them were complete accidents on my part.

If something happened to anyone else, it would not have been considered a sin, as drunkenness is not actually a sin, but - as I explained before - a generally unpleasant state of affairs spiritually, as you can't focus on your responsibilities to God and man when drunk.

[Harmonious]

Yeshua fulfilled the Law.No, he didn't.
He rejected man made Talmudic traditions that were not in the Tanakh. Most of the details of how to fulfill the laws that were in the Tanach are in the Talmud. The Talmud isn't whole cloth, you know.

And Jesus came up with some stuff all on his own. I'd be far more willing to say that Jesus rejected the Jewish way of doing things and made his own, man-made traditions that were neither in Tanach nor in Jewish law.
He is the blessed pesach Lamb.Ew. No, he wasn't.

[Apatriot]

I'm not trying to judge anyone. If I've come across that way (to anyone here), I apologize. I'm trying to focus on what alchohol CAN do to a person. It can and has destroyed countless lives - and is currently destroying thousands more. Something so destructive, and dangerous, IMHO, cannot be acceptable to God.

I understand that someone may be able to drink one glass of wine, and not become "drunk." But I also see nothing....absolutely nothing GOOD that can come of drinking - not even one swig.

Paul said it was good for the digestion....

[FoxGranadaChuck]

Paul said it was good for the digestion....


Something that the French and the Italians already know.....

;) ;)

[Reeder]

Paul said it was good for the digestion....

Grapejuice is better. :mrgreen:

[jmacvols]

A----------------------------------------------------------------------B
If "Joe" begins drinking at point "A" and quits at point "B" because of passing out, where along the line did he become drunk?

That is different for every person, as each person has a different blood/alcohol tolerance ratio.

And that was something that was given to be understood in terms of common sense. A person (who is not an alcoholic) knows how much alcohol he or she can have to make him or her a little tipsy. And a person knows how much alcohol he or she can have that will push him or herself over the limit.

And if a person doesn't know... It doesn't take much to find out.

While it might be easier to simply abstain, and that isn't necessarily a bad thing, it is by no means necessary. People can indeed figure it out, and either enjoy it or not.

So if Joe becomes "drunk" on the 5th drink, are you saying the first 4 did not contribute to his drunkenness? It was the first 4 that brought him to the degree drunkenness he is at the 5th. Blood/alcohol tolerence has nothing to do with it. "No one" drinks and then suddenly becomes 'drunk' or "over the limit" on their 5th or 6th drink. Drunkenness is a process that begins with the first drink, not the last. WIth the first drink one is x degrees drunk. With the second drink, one is x more degrees drunk than he was with the first. The same with the third drink and so on. Drunkenness is sin, it is also a process so the process would be sinful also. As I pointed out earlier, Vine said the verb 'drunken' as Paul used it is an inceptive verb, it shows a beginning, a process.

[Harmonious]

I'm not sure why you are focusing on the technical details of what precise point becomes drunkenness, jmacvols.

Being drunk isn't specifically a sin. It is not a praiseworthy state, but it isn't a sin.

Therefore, why does it matter so much to you? I mean, I'll respect your need to know, but I don't get it.

[jmacvols]

The OT doesn't. But then again, what WE consider social drinking, and what people in ancient times considered social drinking were very different things.

You are jaded with the concept of fresh drinking water. In ancient times, people might have been more wary to simply drink the water with who knows what in it. But wine... They knew exactly what was in it. Even if it was diluted with water, the wine would knock out the harmful content of what might have been in the water.

Drunkenness was condemned. But actual drinking of wine was not condemned.

Do you know that since the advent of the Book of Esther, it became a custom (if not precisely a law) for Jews to drink alcohol on Purim such that "they confuse 'Cursed is Haman' and 'Blessed is Mordechai?'" It is true. And it all started because of a party thrown by Achashverosh, king of Persia. The fact that the Jews were miraculously saved from Haman's machinations was undoubted, but the miracles were hidden.

Since there is a dictum that says, "When the wine goes in, the truth comes out," it makes sense that on a holiday where the hiddenness of the hand of God was plain, it equally makes sense that it is a time to let a little bit looser with the inhibitions than at other times, and to let a little alcohol get a person disoriented enough that a person would have to concentrate to properly say "Cursed is Haman" and "Blessed is Mordechai."

Some good CAN come from drinking. But it takes self-control. And if you know anything about Jewish law, it is ALL about self-control.

THe NT does condemn drunkenness. And from the language used, it also condemns the process of becoming drunk. And of course, we realize the OT is not binding upon today, don't we?

[Gidon]

No, he didn't.
Most of the details of how to fulfill the laws that were in the Tanach are in the Talmud. The Talmud isn't whole cloth, you know.

And Jesus came up with some stuff all on his own. I'd be far more willing to say that Jesus rejected the Jewish way of doing things and made his own, man-made traditions that were neither in Tanach nor in Jewish law.
Ew. No, he wasn't.

There is no Temple, so where is the sacrifice? How can one atone?

[Gidon]

I'm not trying to pick a fight Harm, just wondering where you are coming from? I am meeting more and more Jews who like myself have accepted Yeshua. I am part of Jews for Jesus now and we are growing exponentially. I think a lot of our people confuse tradition with Law. I assume you are Orthodox. I relate better with the orthodox than Reformed or Conservative. 2 Jews 3 arguments.

[harlin]

" I understand that someone may be able to drink one glass of wine, and not become "drunk." But I also see nothing....absolutely nothing GOOD that can come of drinking - not even one swig."

I don't think it is wrong to be teetolar but drinking alcohol is not a sin. Nothing good can come of drinking [alcohol]? I say nothing good can come of eating chocolate cake, yet is that a sin? Also, if we took things to extreme we could say that water can also do us harm: [google search: hyponatremia]. Then is it that these things are "bad"? I'd say not. It's the abuse of things/actions that is wrong. If you can drink without it causing you trouble -- health, well-being, others' wellbeing, then you are fine. If you are an alcoholic, then you should not drink period. Let's use our brains shall we? In cases where our thinking is superceded by The Lord's commands the Bible is clear on them. Otherwise we should use our judgment.

[jmacvols]

I will take a part of your post now and then reply to the rest later. Vacuum seal bottles are a modern invention. They had no means for keeping fresh grape juice, but by fermenting it, they could keep it as wine. I have read some fantastic claims that the Jews had some means of preserving "unfermented wine." If they could do it, why can't we? If someone will demonstrate that grape juice can be kept in any desirable state for drinking from summer until Passover in the spring, without the benefit of cold, vacuum seal, or fermentation, he will have a plausible argument. To say that they drank diluted wine does not meet the isue for, whether it be 2% or 16% alcohol, it still would be alcoholic.

I provided a link to this issue in post # 84. They not only knew how to keep grape juice from fermenting, but could preserve fruits and grain.

New, sweet wine was alcoholic. (Acts 2:12-15). . ."All were amazed and perplexed, saying to one another, "What does this mean?" But others sneered and said, "They are filled with new wine." "But Peter, standing with the eleven, raised his voice and addressed them, "Men of Judea and all who live in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and listen to what I say. Indeed, these are not drunk, as you suppose, for it is only nine o'clock in the morning."

What happened to 1 Cor 11?

I did a quick check around the internet and from what I could find in Greek lexicons "new wine" or gleukos means unfermented grape juice. I believe this context in Acts 2 does, in an indirect way, prove the apostles were not drinking fermented wine. First the word gleukos is used instead of oinos. Oinos can mean fermented wine and would help your argument, but it is not used. Secondly, the context here shows that the people came together and ""mocked"" the apostles. I see that the crowd was using mocking irony that these Christians who abstain from drinking intoxicating drinks have gotten themselves drunk on their grape juice. There is mocking irony in accusing of being drunk on grape juice, but there is no mocking irony in accusing one of getting drunk on a fermented drink. I believe the reason Peter did not answer by directly saying "we do not drink new wine (gleukos)" is because I believe gleukos is unfermented grape juice and Christians certainly did drink unfermented grape juice. I believe Peter answered them in a way they could not refute. Peter is essentially saying those that do drink, they do not even get drunk this early in the day, so why would we who do not even drink be drunk this early ourselves.
To add to this, in the Ephesian epistle, Paul makes a contrast between being full of wine or full of the Spirit. It is an either/or proposition....one cannot be full of both at the same time. This same contrasting idea is expressed about John the baptizer in Luke, that he would not drink wine or strong drink, but be filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother's womb. We also find this same contrasting idea here in Acts 2, that the apostles were filled with the Holy SPirit, verses 1-5, hence they would not be full of fermented wine and intoxicated.
Lastly, how do you reconcile what you believe Acts 2:12-15 says with the apostles saying Christians should abstain [nepho] from drinking intoxicating drinks? For example, Paul said elders are to abstain, yet you think Acts 2:12-15 contradicts this?

[Reeder]

I don't think it is wrong to be teetolar but drinking alcohol is not a sin.

Thats fine if that is your belief. I believe it is a sin.


Nothing good can come of drinking [alcohol]? I say nothing good can come of eating chocolate cake, yet is that a sin?

Chocolate cake does not impair judgement, either.


Also, if we took things to extreme we could say that water can also do us harm: [google search: hyponatremia]. Then is it that these things are "bad"? I'd say not. It's the abuse of things/actions that is wrong.


I agree. All things must be done and used with good judgement. Too much water, food, etc. is not good either. The difference is, too much water can kill you, but a few glasses of water can't. A few glasses of alchohol CAN, and it can harm others along the way (family, friends, victims of drunk driving accidents, etc.)


If you can drink without it causing you trouble -- health, well-being, others' wellbeing, then you are fine. If you are an alcoholic, then you should not drink period.

How many people start out thinking that? Most, I'd say. And how do people BECOME alchoholics?........they drink a little bit, and it builds from there.

[jmacvols]

I have to disagree. I drink on occasion. But not to get drunk. I can have a glass or two of bourbon and coke, or a couple of beers one night and it may be months before I have another drink. I don't need approval for drunkeness because I'm not a drunkard. I do know people that will be looking over their shoulders when they're walking in the liquour store to make sure the preacher isn't driving down the road. That's just silly.


You say you drink but not to get drunk. Yet you are getting some degree drunk with the first drink and more degrees drunk with each successive drink. Some say they are not drunk until they are "imparied" in some way. Impairment begins with the first drink and gets gradually worse from there. Now the impairment with the first drink is not near the same level of impairment with the 10th drink, but impairment is there in the first drink and it only increases in degree as more drinks are consumed.

[jmacvols]

The ancient Pharasee's asked a similar question. The bible clearly stated that the sabbath day was to be a holy convocation unto the Lord and "that shalt do no work on the sabbath day".
The problem is, the bible doesn't define what "work" is. So what is "work". Well, since the bible wasn't clear the religious leaders of the day decided that it was up to them to define what work was and instruct the people. They decided that if you were a physician you could keep a patient from getting any worse on a sabbath day, but you could do nothing to improve the patient's condition or you were "working". You could not carry the weight of more than two dried figs. You could not carry your lamp from one side of your room to the other on the sabbath day. You could not walk more than 7/10th of one mile. (all from the Talmud).
The results of their diligent study and research into the matter, in their honest attempt to keep from breaking God's command, was that they twice accused Jesus and His deciples of breaking the Sabbath day law.
So what exactly is drunk? Since the bible isn't clear, we should let our religious leaders decide, don't you think?

The only "religious leaders" I have are Christ and His apostles, and they condemn "drunkenness". So the question that I have asked is at what point is one "drunk"?
Drunkenness is a matter of degree, one becomes some degree drunk with the very first drink and only gets more degrees drunk from there. Drunkenness is not a point one eventually reaches but a process that begins with the first drink. My religious leaders said we are to abstain [nepho] be sober, do we know what abstain and/or sober mean? Can we abstain and be sober while at the same time be drunk? So you ask "so exactly what is drunk?". I can tell you what drunk is not, it's not abstaining and being sober which we are told to be.

[CID_0687]

You say you drink but not to get drunk. Yet you are getting some degree drunk with the first drink and more degrees drunk with each successive drink. Some say they are not drunk until they are "imparied" in some way. Impairment begins with the first drink and gets gradually worse from there. Now the impairment with the first drink is not near the same level of impairment with the 10th drink, but impairment is there in the first drink and it only increases in degree as more drinks are consumed.

jmac, I mean no disrespect to you in anyway. I value everyone's opinion, however, throughout the entire thread you have repeated these same lines over and over. You obviously are a very smart individual. And I respect your values, but could you please find more to base your argument on.

[buflineks]

You say you drink but not to get drunk. Yet you are getting some degree drunk with the first drink and more degrees drunk with each successive drink. Some say they are not drunk until they are "imparied" in some way. Impairment begins with the first drink and gets gradually worse from there. Now the impairment with the first drink is not near the same level of impairment with the 10th drink, but impairment is there in the first drink and it only increases in degree as more drinks are consumed.

Since you don't drink, how would know the effects of one drink?

One drink doesn't "impair" anyone. In fact, if you are so against the intake of alcohol, then I would suggest that you don't eat any preserved or canned food, because they all contain at least minor amounts of alcohol. And with your AA playbook statement above, you would be sinning.

Oh yeah, you had better not take any cough medicine either. Even perscription cough medicines contain alcohol.

Therefore, by your methodology, if you have done any of the above, you are commiting a sin and by your sola interpreta doctrine, you are profaning the WORD.


Dang, sucks to be you, doesn't it?

[jmacvols]

I'm not sure why you are focusing on the technical details of what precise point becomes drunkenness, jmacvols.

Being drunk isn't specifically a sin. It is not a praiseworthy state, but it isn't a sin.

Therefore, why does it matter so much to you? I mean, I'll respect your need to know, but I don't get it.

Paul says drunkards will not inherit the kingdom of GOd. It's a salvational issue.

[CID_0687]

Paul says drunkards will not inherit the kingdom of GOd. It's a salvational issue.
Can you show me that scripture?

[jmacvols]

jmac, I mean no disrespect to you in anyway. I value everyone's opinion, however, throughout the entire thread you have repeated these same lines over and over. You obviously are a very smart individual. And I respect your values, but could you please find more to base your argument on.

Sorry, but what else should I base it on?
I cannot accept the idea some put forth that they are not drunk until they are on their 5th or 6th drink and that the first 4 or 5 drinks did not contribute to their drunkenness. I showed that Vine say the verb drunken was inceptive, that it is a process. I guess I can only drop this line of reasoning until someone can prove the first few drinks did not contribute to drunkenness. I think we can agree that drunkenness is a sin, so if that first drink contributed some degree to this sin, would that make the first drink sinful as much as the 5th or 6th drink?

[jmacvols]

Can you show me that scripture?

1 Co r 6:9,10. Note the contrast in verse 11.

[CID_0687]

Not nescesarrily. The first slice of pizza isn't a sin, but if you sit there and devour the whole pie in one sitting, the you're a glutton. Gluttony is a sin as well. I don't do this, but I have in the past. If I got up on Saturday morning and drank one beer every two hours, until I went to bed that night, I would not be drunk. The one or two beers, or whatever else I choose to drink on occasion, does not impare my judgement. Where sin comes in is when you don't know when to stop, or you do and simply don't care.

[CID_0687]

1 Co r 6:9,10. Note the contrast in verse 11.
OK, I read the verse, there's a lot more to that than just drunkards. And again I don't deny that being drunk is a sin. I refer to my last post.

[jmacvols]

Since you don't drink, how would know the effects of one drink?

Are you saying one must have a few drinks, may be 5 or 6, before they feel "effects"? So when they feel these "effects" they are then drunk? Did the first 4 or 5 drinks contrubute to feeling these effects (being drunk)? If so, they would be just as wrong as the 5th or 6th that also contributed to the feeling of these effect, if not, why?
My point is that the first 4 or 5 contributed to this "effect" as much as the 6th or 7th, yet somehow people want to dimiss those first few drinks for some reason. Now what would that reason be? Maybe to try and justify thier drinking? If not this reason, then what reason?

One drink doesn't "impair" anyone. In fact, if you are so against the intake of alcohol, then I would suggest that you don't eat any preserved or canned food, because they all contain at least minor amounts of alcohol. And with your AA playbook statement above, you would be sinning.

In doing some research, I did come across a web site where the meidical community did say the first drink does cause some level of impariment. I'll see if I can find that link and post it.

Oh yeah, you had better not take any cough medicine either. Even perscription cough medicines contain alcohol.

Therefore, by your methodology, if you have done any of the above, you are commiting a sin and by your sola interpreta doctrine, you are profaning the WORD.


Dang, sucks to be you, doesn't it?

Taking drugs for medicinal purposes is not the same as social drinking, there's a different purpose behind both. Paul was not instructing Timothy about social drinking, but about medicinal and antiseptic reasons. Even if you could prove taking drugs for medicinal reasons was wrong, that still would not justify recreational, social drinking....the two things are completely different.

[buflineks]

Taking drugs for medicinal purposes is not the same as social drinking, there's a different purpose behind both. Paul was not instructing Timothy about social drinking, but about medicinal and antiseptic reasons. Even if you could prove taking drugs for medicinal reasons was wrong, that still would not justify recreational, social drinking....the two things are completely different.

Oh so now your saying that it isn't alcohol per say............it's the intent?

So what this all boils down to is not alcohol but rather your Sola Interpreta of the Bancroft Bible, and man made social traditions.

I get it. Your "truth" from your politically motivated and written "Scripture" followed by your politically motivated utopian ideals.

Man, must be great to have that much power.

What's really funny here is that you say, "If it isn't in the bible then it shouldn't be done.". But you would think that the writters of the bible would have said ,"Grape Juice" if they meant "Grape Juice". I love how you sit there and expound Sola Scriptura and Sola Interpreta in the same breath and change the meanings of the words 1900 years after the fact. Does sound very "Sola Sciptura" to me, only "Sola Interpreta".

[buflineks]

In doing some research, I did come across a web site where the meidical community did say the first drink does cause some level of impariment. I'll see if I can find that link and post it..

And in doing some research you can come across equally valid medical research that states that a drink a day aids in digestion and chloresterol management.

[jmacvols]

Not nescesarrily. The first slice of pizza isn't a sin, but if you sit there and devour the whole pie in one sitting, the you're a glutton. Gluttony is a sin as well. I don't do this, but I have in the past. If I got up on Saturday morning and drank one beer every two hours, until I went to bed that night, I would not be drunk. The one or two beers, or whatever else I choose to drink on occasion, does not impare my judgement. Where sin comes in is when you don't know when to stop, or you do and simply don't care.

I would say your anaolgy fails becasue eating pizza is not the same thing as drinking alcoholic beverages. One is not a glutton eating one slice, but one is some degree drunk with the first drink.

Since your tired of this line of reasoning, let me turn it around. I've touched on this earlier, but what benefits for the Christian does drinking bring about? What good does it do, what kind of example does it set for non-Christians, how does it contribute good for the cause of Christ, how does it promote the gospel, can it be a stumbling block, does it bring encouragement, does it help the needy and sick, what virtue is in it? Or does it bring about alcoholism, financial ruin, broken familes, physical abuse?

[CID_0687]

Since your tired of this line of reasoning, let me turn it around. I've touched on this earlier, but what benefits for the Christian does drinking bring about? What good does it do, what kind of example does it set for non-Christians, how does it contribute good for the cause of Christ, how does it promote the gospel, can it be a stumbling block, does it bring encouragement, does it help the needy and sick, what virtue is in it? Or does it bring about alcoholism, financial ruin, broken familes, physical abuse?

Does it bring about alocholism? Not always.

Financial ruin, broken families, physical abuse? My mother and father both drank, and were married for 28 years. They would still be if Dad was still alive. They both were very successful in their carreer paths. And as far as physical abuse goes my parents neve laid a hand on each other. And as for me and my siblings we were only spanked if needed. I can count on one hand the number of times I had to be disciplined, and I deserved everyone that I received. But that wasn't abuse.
And as for me personally the same rules apply. You've been watching too much Lifetime.

[jmacvols]

Oh so now your saying that it isn't alcohol per say............it's the intent?

So what this all boils down to is not alcohol but rather your Sola Interpreta of the Bancroft Bible, and man made social traditions.

I get it. Your "truth" from your politically motivated and written "Scripture" followed by your politically motivated utopian ideals.

Man, must be great to have that much power.

What's really funny here is that you say, "If it isn't in the bible then it shouldn't be done.". But you would think that the writters of the bible would have said ,"Grape Juice" if they meant "Grape Juice". I love how you sit there and expound Sola Scriptura and Sola Interpreta in the same breath and change the meanings of the words 1900 years after the fact. Does sound very "Sola Sciptura" to me, only "Sola Interpreta".

Do you not see the difference in intent? Is medicinal different from recreational? Yes it is, so medicinal reasons do not allow for recreational ones. As I said, even if you could prove medicinal uses are wrong, that could only make recreational ones wrong also, and that still leaves you sitting in that sinking boat.
Maybe the writers of the bible did not say "grape juice" because they did not speak English? But they did use onios which is a generic term that can mean fermented or unfermented, depending on context. Which brings us back to one of many points you have yet to respond to. Why do you think the writers of the bible deliberately did not use onios in referring to the Lord's Supper but used the phrase "fruit of the vine" instead?
I can't go wrong by only following the inspired bible, but I know I can go wrong by following man-made, uninspired documents.

[jmacvols]

And in doing some research you can come across equally valid medical research that states that a drink a day aids in digestion and chloresterol management.

No

[jmacvols]

Does it bring about alocholism? Not always.

Financial ruin, broken families, physical abuse? My mother and father both drank, and were married for 28 years. They would still be if Dad was still alive. They both were very successful in their carreer paths. And as far as physical abuse goes my parents neve laid a hand on each other. And as for me and my siblings we were only spanked if needed. I can count on one hand the number of times I had to be disciplined, and I deserved everyone that I received. But that wasn't abuse.
And as for me personally the same rules apply. You've been watching too much Lifetime.

True, it doesn't always bring about all these problems, but the point I was trying to emphasis was that it brings about nothing good, worthwhile, virtuous, etc, for the Christian, if it does anything, it can only bring harm to the Christian.

[CID_0687]

And in doing some research you can come across equally valid medical research that states that a drink a day aids in digestion and chloresterol management.
That is true, my grandfather had trouble with his kidneys and the doctor told him to drink a beer every evening.

[myboyzdad]

Fo shizzle.
And for my dead homies.

[buflineks]

Do you not see the difference in intent? Is medicinal different from recreational? Yes it is, so medicinal reasons do not allow for recreational ones. As I said, even if you could prove medicinal uses are wrong, that could only make recreational ones wrong also, and that still leaves you sitting in that sinking boat.
Maybe the writers of the bible did not say "grape juice" because they did not speak English? But they did use onios which is a generic term that can mean fermented or unfermented, depending on context. Which brings us back to one of many points you have yet to respond to. Why do you think the writers of the bible deliberately did not use onios in referring to the Lord's Supper but used the phrase "fruit of the vine" instead?
I can't go wrong by only following the inspired bible, but I know I can go wrong by following man-made, uninspired documents.

You mean the "Bancroft Inspired bible" don't you?

Why don't you tell us in your vast knowledge of literary experience the reasons for the use of different words.

Again, you are using somantics, word play, and sola interpreta.

As to the use of the word "Oinos". I don't know enough greek to comment, but I am sure that "Oinos" when used refers to "fermented wine". because in the latin Vulgate in which the first translations from the greek come, if it had meant a "juice, unfermented" then it would have use those words instead of "vinum".

Now then, who would have had a better understanding of the origional intent of the scriptures and the use of the langauge? Jerome? or Bancroft?
Or the 19th century revisionists you follow?

What it comes down to is your Sola Interptra of the NT and then an end around attempt to justify a doctrine with your interpretation.

In fact, the whole "drinking is a sin" mentality didn't come around until after the reformation. It came around as an attempt to "not be Catholic".

Man made interpretation of man-made text.

[JenT]

You mean the "Bancroft Inspired bible" don't you?

Why don't you tell us in your vast knowledge of literary experience the reasons for the use of different words.

Again, you are using somantics, word play, and sola interpreta.

As to the use of the word "Oinos". I don't know enough greek to comment, but I am sure that "Oinos" when used refers to "fermented wine". because in the latin Vulgate in which the first translations from the greek come, if it had meant a "juice, unfermented" then it would have use those words instead of "vinum".

Now then, who would have had a better understanding of the origional intent of the scriptures and the use of the langauge? Jerome? or Bancroft?
Or the 19th century revisionists you follow?

What it comes down to is your Sola Interptra of the NT and then an end around attempt to justify a doctrine with your interpretation.

In fact, the whole "drinking is a sin" mentality didn't come around until after the reformation. It came around as an attempt to "not be Catholic".

Man made interpretation of man-made text.

Drinking came around in an attempt to "not be Catholic"?

What?

[JenT]

Drinking came around in an attempt to "not be Catholic"?

What?

LOL BUF!!!! That's almost as good as the one I heard about a group of men that were really upset they were ordered to take more wives!

Pffffffft! <---- more feminine than BWAHAHAHAHA

(Buf knows I love him, don't ya Buf)

[buflineks]

Jmac,

The funny thing is, your "bancroft bible" NT came around from the Textus Receptus by a Catholic priest. It was done in Latin.

Now then, in order for the translation to be done correctly and mean what you think it should mean, then succus would have been used instead of vinum. I'm pretty sure that Erasmus was smart enough in both Greek and Latin to know the difference between the two.

so are you saying that the bancroft bible is in error?

[Hadassah]

Jmac,

The funny thing is, your "bancroft bible" NT came around from the Textus Receptus by a Catholic priest. It was done in Latin.

Now then, in order for the translation to be done correctly and mean what you think it should mean, then succus would have been used instead of vinum. I'm pretty sure that Erasmus was smart enough in both Greek and Latin to know the difference between the two.

so are you saying that the bancroft bible is in error?


Buf, haven't you learned yet to not confuse people with the facts? :naughty:



:whistle::mrgreen:

[buflineks]

I just found out that the greek word for "grape juice" is "trux". and that it appears in no greek translation of the NT.

So if Erasmus had seen the word "trux" in his greek sources, he would have written "succus" in the Textus Receptus.

so I guess then that if you are using "grape juice" in your religious services, then you are not following the "Bible" like you claim to.

[buflineks]

But they did use onios which is a generic term that can mean fermented or unfermented, depending on context. Which brings us back to one of many points you have yet to respond to. Why do you think the writers of the bible deliberately did not use onios in referring to the Lord's Supper but used the phrase "fruit of the vine" instead?
I can't go wrong by only following the inspired bible, but I know I can go wrong by following man-made, uninspired documents.

Depending on the context?

Don't you mean depending on Sola Interpreta?

Your arguement doesn't work. Why would they use "Oinos" to mean unfermented wine that was drank at the wedding, and then use the same word "Oinos" to condem getting drunk? You can't get drunk off of unfermented wine.

I don't mind that people don't drink. what I do mind is "revisionism". and what you are spouting is "revisionism".

[jmacvols]

You mean the "Bancroft Inspired bible" don't you?

Why don't you tell us in your vast knowledge of literary experience the reasons for the use of different words.

Again, you are using somantics, word play, and sola interpreta.

As to the use of the word "Oinos". I don't know enough greek to comment, but I am sure that "Oinos" when used refers to "fermented wine". because in the latin Vulgate in which the first translations from the greek come, if it had meant a "juice, unfermented" then it would have use those words instead of "vinum".

Now then, who would have had a better understanding of the origional intent of the scriptures and the use of the langauge? Jerome? or Bancroft?
Or the 19th century revisionists you follow?

What it comes down to is your Sola Interptra of the NT and then an end around attempt to justify a doctrine with your interpretation.

In fact, the whole "drinking is a sin" mentality didn't come around until after the reformation. It came around as an attempt to "not be Catholic".

Man made interpretation of man-made text.

http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/books/wine_in_the_bible/5.html

If you would click on the above link and scroll down a bit to the heading:

Part III - Ephesians 5:18
"DO NOT GET DRUNK WITH WINE"

THe RSV translates this verse "be not drunk with wine, for that is debauchery". Using the phrase "for that" shows that the state of debauchery is condemend, not the wine itself, ie., Paul is condemning the abuse of wine, not it's moderate use. Some might say the RSV translators had a bias for the moderate use of alcohol translating this verse as they did. This "revisionist" version actually supports your position. But if you continue to read the article you'll find that the ancient manuscripts has this verse read "be not drunk with wine in which is excess." The words "in which" shows that it is the wine itself that Paul is condemning, which supports my position. Tertullian, along with Jerome, translate this verse with "in which". From the link it says, "Jerome's understanding of this text as admonition to abstain from the use of wine...." So here's the Vulgate, the Catholic Bible, supporting my position, not yours....imagine that. Your Vulgate author says it means to ""abstain from wine"", are you going to follow your own bible? You implied yourself that Jerome would have a "better understanding of the original intent of the scriptures and use of the language", and Jerome said ABSTAIN.



----------------------------------------------------
Your Honor, can we close this case now?

[buflineks]

http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/books/wine_in_the_bible/5.html

If you would click on the above link and scroll down a bit to the heading:

Part III - Ephesians 5:18
"DO NOT GET DRUNK WITH WINE"

THe RSV translates this verse "be not drunk with wine, for that is debauchery". Using the phrase "for that" shows that the state of debauchery is condemend, not the wine itself, ie., Paul is condemning the abuse of wine, not it's moderate use. Some might say the RSV translators had a bias for the moderate use of alcohol translating this verse as they did. This "revisionist" version actually supports your position. But if you continue to read the article you'll find that the ancient manuscripts has this verse read "be not drunk with wine in which is excess." The words "in which" shows that it is the wine itself that Paul is condemning, which supports my position. Tertullian, along with Jerome, translate this verse with "in which". From the link it says, "Jerome's understanding of this text as admonition to abstain from the use of wine...." So here's the Vulgate, the Catholic Bible, supporting my position, not yours....imagine that. Your Vulgate author says it means to ""abstain from wine"", are you going to follow your own bible? You implied yourself that Jerome would have a "better understanding of the original intent of the scriptures and use of the language", and Jerome said ABSTAIN.



----------------------------------------------------
Your Honor, can we close this case now?

Well, according to Ariel Loftus, Phd. , Phillip Thomas, Phd., and Dr. Anthony Gythiel, Phd, this is just more revisionism by a man who has a problem with disclosure.

[Hadassah]

never mind him. you need to study, buf, though Im sure you'll do just fine tomorrow.

[buflineks]

never mind him. you need to study, buf, though Im sure you'll do just fine tomorrow.

[ducking head..........hang dog look]


yes, ma'am.:frown:

[Hadassah]

[ducking head..........hang dog look]


yes, ma'am.:frown:



you're going to be fine tomorrow. :hug:

[Frazzled]

Chocolate cake does not impair judgement, either.


Excuse Me http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v388/scrappydo89012/smilies/smiley_emoticons_skeptisch-1.gif but I believe you are mistaken.

[Reeder]

Excuse Me http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v388/scrappydo89012/smilies/smiley_emoticons_skeptisch-1.gif but I believe you are mistaken.

:mrgreen:

Well, for SOME, maybe.

[Poisonshady313]

There is no Temple, so where is the sacrifice? How can one atone?


That's a thread all of it's own.

Perhaps you could start one with this post as the OP. I would hate for this thread about alcohol to be derailed.

[Frazzled]

:mrgreen:

Well, for SOME, maybe.

I'm just sayin' for some the challenge will be alcohol....for others, (sigh) the challenge will be chocolate!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v388/scrappydo89012/smilies/34862c2jpoc3q18.gif

[CID_0687]

I'm just sayin' for some the challenge will be alcohol....for others, (sigh) the challenge will be chocolate!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v388/scrappydo89012/smilies/34862c2jpoc3q18.gif
And for others it could be chocolate flavored alcohol.

[DispensationalJim]

http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/books/wine_in_the_bible/5.html

If you would click on the above link and scroll down a bit to the heading:

Part III - Ephesians 5:18
"DO NOT GET DRUNK WITH WINE"

THe RSV translates this verse "be not drunk with wine, for that is debauchery". Using the phrase "for that" shows that the state of debauchery is condemend, not the wine itself, ie., Paul is condemning the abuse of wine, not it's moderate use. Some might say the RSV translators had a bias for the moderate use of alcohol translating this verse as they did. This "revisionist" version actually supports your position. But if you continue to read the article you'll find that the ancient manuscripts has this verse read "be not drunk with wine in which is excess." The words "in which" shows that it is the wine itself that Paul is condemning, which supports my position. Tertullian, along with Jerome, translate this verse with "in which". From the link it says, "Jerome's understanding of this text as admonition to abstain from the use of wine...." So here's the Vulgate, the Catholic Bible, supporting my position, not yours....imagine that. Your Vulgate author says it means to ""abstain from wine"", are you going to follow your own bible? You implied yourself that Jerome would have a "better understanding of the original intent of the scriptures and use of the language", and Jerome said ABSTAIN.



----------------------------------------------------
Your Honor, can we close this case now?

I have expressed my view against any use of alcohol numerous times on Hannity. My parents were both alcoholics, my daughter and her son are recovering alcoholics and drug abusers. As a Minister of Music, I regularly present the gospel through music and preaching at the local Rescue Missions and have seen many amazing and radical 'conversions." But, from the above and many other relationships and experiences, I have come to strongly believe that alcohol is to be avoided at all times.

=============================

So, amazingly, for once on the Hannity forum, I ACTUALLY AGREE WITH AND SUPPORT JMACVOLS!!! Thank you, Jmac, for "sticking to your guns" on this issue.

I also have appreciated Reeder's input and comments on this topic as well.

=============================

One point that I did not see discussed so far was this:

To my knowledge, no one knows what causes a "social" drinker to become an alcoholic. Thus, there is ALWAYS the possibility that once you begin to drink alcohol socially, you MAY become an alcoholic. And, of course, you will almost surely not know it until it is TOO LATE!!

So, IMO, IT IS JUST TOO RISKY to even start drinking alcohol.

[terri910]

That's a thread all of it's own.

Perhaps you could start one with this post as the OP. I would hate for this thread about alcohol to be derailed.
Poison, have you discussed the Temple (and what would take place there) previously? I had a question pop into my head about it today when reading about something else entirely! The question is pretty simple, I think, but if you don't want to go into it here, maybe you could direct me to a better thread.

Would worship take place in the Temple? (I hope that doesn't sound like a really dumb question)

[Harmonious]

THe NT does condemn drunkenness. And from the language used, it also condemns the process of becoming drunk. And of course, we realize the OT is not binding upon today, don't we?For you, it probably never WAS binding. But for Jews, the OT is as binding today as it was when it was first given.

And the NT means nothing to us. Nothing at all.

[Harmonious]

There is no Temple, so where is the sacrifice? How can one atone?

I agree with Poisonshady. This requires its own thread. But I'll give an answer, but please don't respond to it. Make a new thread.

The sacrifices are on hold until the Temple is rebuilt. And there are all kinds of ways to atone, and most of them have nothing to do with the sacrifices required to be brought to the Temple.

I've answered the question. If you want to know more on this topic, start a new thread.

[Harmonious]

I'm not trying to pick a fight Harm, just wondering where you are coming from? I am meeting more and more Jews who like myself have accepted Yeshua. I am part of Jews for Jesus now and we are growing exponentially. I know. I've known about your perspective for a long time.

I think a lot of our people confuse tradition with Law. They do indeed. But I am not such a one. Well... there might be things, but nothing that YOU will come across in our interactions.
I assume you are Orthodox.You are correct.
I relate better with the orthodox than Reformed or Conservative. 2 Jews 3 arguments.
So do I, love, so do I.

[Poisonshady313]

Poison, have you discussed the Temple (and what would take place there) previously? I had a question pop into my head about it today when reading about something else entirely! The question is pretty simple, I think, but if you don't want to go into it here, maybe you could direct me to a better thread.

Would worship take place in the Temple? (I hope that doesn't sound like a really dumb question)

Direct all questions regarding the Temple towards Harmonious.

I imagine the answer is yes... but there was a tremendous lot of activities that went on in the Temple.

[CID_0687]

While it may be true that Christians live under the NT. We still have to follow the OT to some degree. It is meant to be a tool for us on how we are suppose to live. If we only lived by the NT we would be filled with many more questions than we already have. The OT really gets down to business on how we are suppose to serve God. If you are a Christian you can't have one without the other. Jmacvols says that the OT is not binding today. If we don't have the OT, then we lose God's top ten list. We lose the stories of obedience, and disobedience towards God. Where would we find the things in the NT? In Paul's letters? They barely scratch the surface. Don't get me wrong I love every book of the Bible (accept maybe Chronicles, that kinda boring) And in keeping in the lines of this thread, I've never read a verse in the OT or the NT that says "Thou shalt not drink alcohol." There are verses that speak against drunkeness but that is all.

[Poisonshady313]

And in keeping in the lines of this thread, I've never read a verse in the OT or the NT that says "Thou shalt not drink alcohol." There are verses that speak against drunkeness but that is all.

:clap:

[AeroEngineer]

It isn't alcohol in moderation, the social drinkers are looking for approval of drunkenness in moderation.

If you want to have an honest discussion with people, it would behoove you to lose the "holier than thou" attitude.

[Harmonious]

The ancient Pharasee's asked a similar question. The bible clearly stated that the sabbath day was to be a holy convocation unto the Lord and "that shalt do no work on the sabbath day".
The problem is, the bible doesn't define what "work" is. So what is "work". Well, since the bible wasn't clear the religious leaders of the day decided that it was up to them to define what work was and instruct the people. Sigh.

No, the people of the day didn't make it up as they went along, or decide how to define it.

On the same day that the Written Law was given to the Jews, there was an Oral Law that was just as God-given, that the Jews had (and still have) to instruct us on the various and sundry details that are only hinted at in the Written Law.

They decided that if you were a physician you could keep a patient from getting any worse on a sabbath day, but you could do nothing to improve the patient's condition or you were "working".That is not correct.

First of all, anything may be done to save a life. But when it comes to spurious pain, or a condition that will not change or get worse over Shabbat, that may not be dealt with on Shabbat. The reason for that actually has nothing to do with the healing aspect, although that became part of the effect. The cause was the general law of grinding. Grinding is one of the 39 Categories of Creative Work that Jews are forbidden to do on the Sabbath.

For example, it is known that willow bark has pain-killing properties, not unlike asprin. If a random toothache occured, or some other not-quite-serious pain developed, grinding the willow bark to prepare the painkiller into a form that could be taken would be breaking the Sabbath. That is not something that Jews should do.

However, if the pain is serious such that a person would need to lie down to feel better (I'm thinking of migrain headaches, or other such things), it is considered serious enough to grind that willow bark.

Originally, the law was just against the grinding (and the other 38 categories). But with the development of the laws, and fences that were built around the laws such that Jews wouldn't accidentally transgress the actual laws, the whole concept of healing incidental conditions was forbidden, even if the actual grinding was no longer necessary to be done.

This is why Orthodox Jews won't take Tylenol, or some other pain-killer for random aches and pains on Shabbat, even though we don't have to prepare the pills ourselves.

You could not carry the weight of more than two dried figs.Actually, it isn't simply a weight of what can be carried. There is a whole issue of domains, from private to public, or public to private, and a whole host of other details I'm not sure about.
You could not carry your lamp from one side of your room to the other on the sabbath day.Yeah, this was more along the lines of lamps that had oil in them, and not doing anything to them to make them burn better or less efficiently. It has more to do with the fire the lamps are lit with than the actual carrying. But yes.

You could not walk more than 7/10th of one mile. Well... that's not entirely true. Jews cannot walk more than that distance OUTSIDE OF A CITY'S LIMITS on Shabbat. (And that again, has to deal with Jewish legal definitions of what a city is and nothing at all to do with what is generally legally thought of as a city or town.) I've easily walked 4.4 miles from my house to the shul several times. All of it is withing the Town and then City of Poughkeepsie, New York. (all from the Talmud).Apparently, you have done some homework. But not enough to know how the laws are actually applied.

The results of their diligent study and research into the matter, in their honest attempt to keep from breaking God's command, was that they twice accused Jesus and His deciples of breaking the Sabbath day law.Because Jesus and his disciples DID go against Jewish law by breaking the Sabbath day law.
So what exactly is drunk? Since the bible isn't clear, we should let our religious leaders decide, don't you think?
Yup.

[Harmonious]

Poison, have you discussed the Temple (and what would take place there) previously? I had a question pop into my head about it today when reading about something else entirely! The question is pretty simple, I think, but if you don't want to go into it here, maybe you could direct me to a better thread.

Would worship take place in the Temple? (I hope that doesn't sound like a really dumb question)

Really don't want to derail the thread, but I'll answer the question.

Yes, worship would indeed take place. I imagine that would take place in the form of prayer. Yup, it happened there. Worship in the forms of all manners of things took place in the Temple. There is a lot of worship when it comes to Torah and following God's commands, and a LOT of them dealt with the Temple.

Jews really are at a loss without the Temple, but we make due with what we have. We are sorely lacking, but until the Temple is rebuilt, there is nothing to be done about it.

[Harmonious]

But about drinking in general, I can say that Cohanim were not permitted to serve in the Temple if they had drunk alcohol the entire week they were on duty.

[Poisonshady313]

The question is this: at what point is one drunk?

A----------------------------------------------B

If "Joe" began drinking at point A and quit drinking a point B (because he passed out), exactly where along the line did he become drunk, and why that point and not another?


Depends on a lot of factors... what is he drinking? how fast is he drinking it? How many drinks exist between A and B? how big is joe? has joe eaten anything before hand?

You can drink several cans of beer and not get drunk.

You can drink a several (perhaps even 4) shots of vodka and not get drunk.

answers.yahoo.com had someone ask about various degrees of the effect of alcohol... and the answer was listed thus:

buzzed
tipsy
loaded
bombed
hammered
trashed
wasted

loaded = drunk. Tipsy and buzzed are the point in which wine gladdens mens hearts.

[Poisonshady313]

Absolutely nothing good comes from drinking.

Wine gladdens mens hearts, so it says in Psalms.

[Marleysdaddy]

answers.yahoo.com had someone ask about various degrees of the effect of alcohol... and the answer was listed thus:

buzzed
tipsy
loaded
bombed
hammered
trashed
wasted

loaded = drunk. Tipsy and buzzed are the point in which wine gladdens mens hearts.

Fantastic scale! :D

[jmacvols]

So, amazingly, for once on the Hannity forum, I ACTUALLY AGREE WITH AND SUPPORT JMACVOLS!!!



Does this mean the world is about to come to an end or something? :)

[jmacvols]

For you, it probably never WAS binding. But for Jews, the OT is as binding today as it was when it was first given.

And the NT means nothing to us. Nothing at all.

THe OT is not binding upon anyone today, people can only try and make it binding upon themselves. The OT is valuable to us for it helps our understanding of the NT and we can learn from the examples, good or bad, of those OT characters.

I am curious, can you trace your ancestory back to one of the twleve tribes? Also, where do you set up your alter when offering animal sacrifices?

[jmacvols]

If you want to have an honest discussion with people, it would behoove you to lose the "holier than thou" attitude.

You obviously took my statement the wrong way.
Some argue the first few drinks do not contribute to drunkenness, my argument has been that drunkenness is a process, that the first drink contributes to one's drunkenness as much as the last one. So drunkenness begins with the first drink, so is it a sin or not to be "moderately" drunk? Can one moderately lie, moderately committ adultery?

[Darkblade]

wine gladdens the heart. jesus turned water into wine. i don't think he objected to drinking in moderation. linguistically there is a difference between fermented and unfermented grape juice. if the God inspired writers of the bible had meant grape juice they could have used the proper word for it. or do you suggest that God made a mistake when he inspired them to write it the way he did?

[terri910]

Really don't want to derail the thread, but I'll answer the question.

Yes, worship would indeed take place. I imagine that would take place in the form of prayer. Yup, it happened there. Worship in the forms of all manners of things took place in the Temple. There is a lot of worship when it comes to Torah and following God's commands, and a LOT of them dealt with the Temple.

Jews really are at a loss without the Temple, but we make due with what we have. We are sorely lacking, but until the Temple is rebuilt, there is nothing to be done about it.
Thank you. I didn't want to derail the thread, either.

I was wondering about whether it was a place for what some might term "works" or "worship" or a combination.

Thanks, again!

[jmacvols]

While it may be true that Christians live under the NT. We still have to follow the OT to some degree. It is meant to be a tool for us on how we are suppose to live. If we only lived by the NT we would be filled with many more questions than we already have. The OT really gets down to business on how we are suppose to serve God. If you are a Christian you can't have one without the other. Jmacvols says that the OT is not binding today. If we don't have the OT, then we lose God's top ten list. We lose the stories of obedience, and disobedience towards God. Where would we find the things in the NT? In Paul's letters? They barely scratch the surface. Don't get me wrong I love every book of the Bible (accept maybe Chronicles, that kinda boring) And in keeping in the lines of this thread, I've never read a verse in the OT or the NT that says "Thou shalt not drink alcohol." There are verses that speak against drunkeness but that is all.

If you think the OT is still binding today, are you still maintaining the animal sacrifices, purifications, pilgrimages, etc. [just glance thru Gen. to Deut. for a sample of all you must keep.]
Where is the verse that explicitly says thou shalt not watch pornography or thou shalt not abort unborn or partially born babies? Actually there are verses in the NT that says to abstain from drinking. So wouldn't "abstain" be equivalent to "thou shalt not drink"?

[terri910]

Actually there are verses in the NT that says to abstain from drinking. So wouldn't "abstain" be equivalent to "thou shalt not drink"?
Which verses, jmac?

[jmacvols]

Depends on a lot of factors... what is he drinking? how fast is he drinking it? How many drinks exist between A and B? how big is joe? has joe eaten anything before hand?

You can drink several cans of beer and not get drunk.

You can drink a several (perhaps even 4) shots of vodka and not get drunk.

answers.yahoo.com had someone ask about various degrees of the effect of alcohol... and the answer was listed thus:

buzzed
tipsy
loaded
bombed
hammered
trashed
wasted

loaded = drunk. Tipsy and buzzed are the point in which wine gladdens mens hearts.

So one is officailly "drunk" on the 5th shot of vodka. So the first four shots did not contribute to this drunkenness? One just "magically" becomes drunk on the 5th one? As I stated before drunkenness is not a point one reaches, it is a process.

[Frazzled]

You obviously took my statement the wrong way.
Some argue the first few drinks do not contribute to drunkenness, my argument has been that drunkenness is a process, that the first drink contributes to one's drunkenness as much as the last one. So drunkenness begins with the first drink, so is it a sin or not to be "moderately" drunk? Can one moderately lie, moderately committ adultery?

By your logic then, gluttony and being fat starts with the first bite and NOT the overindulgence, so we shouldn't eat because it sets our feet on the path to gluttony? I'm sorry, but that doesn't make sense to me.

[jmacvols]

Which verses, jmac?
1 Thess 5:6-8
1 Pet 5:8
1Pet 1:13

Sober or nepho means to be free from intoxications.

[terri910]

By your logic then, gluttony and being fat starts with the first bite and NOT the overindulgence, so we shouldn't eat because it sets our feet on the path to gluttony? I'm sorry, but that doesn't make sense to me.
Excellent point, Frazzled...

[jmacvols]

wine gladdens the heart.

wine is a mocker and strong drink is raging and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise, Prov 20:1.

So how can wine be praised and condemned at the same time? I believe the obvious explanation is that in the places wine is praised it refers to unfermented grape juice and the places it is condemned refers to fermented wine.


Jesus turned water into wine. i don't think he objected to drinking in moderation. linguistically there is a difference between fermented and unfermented grape juice. if the God inspired writers of the bible had meant grape juice they could have used the proper word for it. or do you suggest that God made a mistake when he inspired them to write it the way he did?


Thru the bible you will find places where grape juice is called "wine". I believe in Isa. a cluster is even called "wine". So the underlying original word that is translated in to the English word "wine" is generic, it can mean fermented or unfermented, the context will tell. So when Jesus made wine, people assume it was fermented, it could easily be unfermented. What about the implications of Jesus making fermented wine to serve to the guests? "IF" these guests were already drunk on the first wine, then the wine Jesus made only contributed to make them even more drunk for a longer period of time. First, according to James, Jesus does not tempt men to sin, so Jesus would not tempt these people to sin thru drunkenness. James tells us men sin when they give into their own lusts. Secondly, Jesus kept the OT law perfectly, He would not violate passages such as Hab 2:15 that forbides giving intoxicating drinks to neighbors. Lastly, John tells us the purpose of Jesus performing these miracles, such as the one at Cana, was to manifest His glory and induce people to have faith in Him. Encouraging people to sin thru drunkenness, Jesus would manifest shame not glory.

[jmacvols]

By your logic then, gluttony and being fat starts with the first bite and NOT the overindulgence, so we shouldn't eat because it sets our feet on the path to gluttony? I'm sorry, but that doesn't make sense to me.

Eating and drinking alcohol are not the same things. One is not a glutton with one bite, but drunkenness begins with the first drink.

[Jeemie]

wine is a mocker and strong drink is raging and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise, Prov 20:1.

So how can wine be praised and condemned at the same time? I believe the obvious explanation is that in the places wine is praised it refers to unfermented grape juice and the places it is condemned refers to fermented wine.

Anyone who says this has not an inkling of understanding of ANE culture, and what they did and did not drink.

[Frazzled]

Eating and drinking alcohol are not the same things. One is not a glutton with one bite, but drunkenness begins with the first drink.

And that's fine, but it's your opinion and not fact. Small amounts of alcohol are not detrimental to the body and I would argue that there are some food items that are far worse.

[Jeemie]

Eating and drinking alcohol are not the same things. One is not a glutton with one bite, but drunkenness begins with the first drink.

How are they not the same?

Is not gluttony a "process" that begins with the first bite?