Actscelerate.com Forum Index Actscelerate.com
Open Any Time -- Day or Night
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
@actscelerate Twitter  @actscelerate Facebook  @actscelerate Google+ 

Does Wine in the Bible contain alcohol or not?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
 
   Actscelerate.com Forum Index -> Feature Presentations This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Message Author
Post Re: People don't "need" wine...... spartanfan
bradfreeman wrote:
spartanfan wrote:
Is it the better choice?


No. It wasn't for Jesus, the apostles and the early church either.

Quote:
Is it the best example to our children?


When it comes to wine, moderation is the best and biblical answer.

Quote:
Would it overall be in the best interests of our nation if we adopted it as policy and didn't sell alcoholic beverages?


No.

Quote:
Is it in the best interests of the church to promote life and not something that is a big part of America's culture of death?


I thought we were discussing wine. Laughing

For the records, I'm pro-life.


You're being silly. And the most pro-life folks promote total abstinence. You are "moderately pro-life" at best.
Golf Cart Mafia Underboss
Posts: 3563
8/19/15 1:38 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: People don't "need" wine...... Dave Dorsey
spartanfan wrote:
In 2013, 88,009 people (approximately 62,000 men and 26,000 women) died from alcohol-related causes, making it the third leading preventable cause of death in the United States.
In 2013, alcohol-impaired driving fatalities accounted for 10,076 deaths (30.8 percent of overall driving fatalities).

And my understanding is that rates for these and similar types of alcohol-related or -complicated incidents increased, rather than decreased, under prohibition.

Quote:
So - I think any reasonable person nowadays would have to say that our nation would be better off if people drank something besides alcoholic beverages.

That is not what you originally said, and that is not what I was replying to. You originally said the US would be better off if alcohol was unavailable for legal sale ("adopted [abstinence] as a policy and didn't sell alcoholic beverages"). That cannot be supported by the history of what happened during the period in which that was the case.
_________________
“The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.” - George Orwell, 1984
Acts Admin
Posts: 11887
8/19/15 2:35 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post bonnie knox
Old Time Country Preacher wrote:
What if a feller don't drink wine, but just keeps some bottles around the home for ornament or decoration?


That depends, Ole Timer. If ya got on a them thair bottle trees and ya thank it's keepin tha evil spirits away an all, ya liable ta be caught up in superstition and witchcraft. If ya just usin the bottle tree ta kindly decorate ya yard an all, why I spect it's okay ta do. Course, if ya just got empty bottles settin in tha windersills, why folks that visit might thank ya done drunk the contents. In that case you'd be better off to hide em like the holiness folk used ta do the TV's.
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
8/19/15 2:47 pm


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Hilarious spartanfan
you are going back to a different era. Move up into the 21st century. In that era (1920-1933) the automobile was fairly young and the number of cars on the road was steadily increasing with each year - thus you would have more people drinking and driving whether it was prohibition or not. Are you trying to say that fewer people died in alcohol related auto accidents in the earlier 1900's than did during prohibition because prohibition increased drunk driving? Do you not realize that the number of vehicles on the roads was dramatically increasing during the age of automation? Do you think I should say more people died of alcohol related horseback and horse drawn carriage accidents before prohibition than during prohibition, proving prohibition made the streets safer? So to say the number of deaths went up as the auto industry was really "taking off" in America then has nothing to do with now. Way more cars on the road during prohibition makes your comparison ridiculous.

Are you saying that we would have more alcohol related auto deaths now if we sold absolutely zero alcoholic beverages in America? Are you saying removing all alcohol from the stores and restaurants today would make the number of alcohol related auto deaths rise today? That is crazy. That's the kind of stuff people do to try to justify their unjustifiable sin.

You guys need to get out of the 1st century in Israel and the Roaring 20's so we can have an intelligent conversation about what's best for our kids and grandkids in the 21st century in America.
Golf Cart Mafia Underboss
Posts: 3563
8/19/15 3:08 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Dave Dorsey
You are really great at beating up straw men, and not so great at responding to what people are actually saying. It should have been obvious to anyone trying to dialogue intelligently and respectfully that I was referring to alcohol-related crimes and deaths, not specifically vehicular alcohol-related deaths.

Additionally, even if I were, your trite response is not logical. Incidence rates do not describe the overall number of times something is occurring, but rather the rate at which it is occurring, and could be compared regardless of the overall number of cars on the road. But that's not what I was talking about.

I'm done discussing this with you.
_________________
“The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.” - George Orwell, 1984
Acts Admin
Posts: 11887
8/19/15 3:22 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Crackin' Me Up spartanfan
Dave Dorsey wrote:
You are really great at beating up straw men, and not so great at responding to what people are actually saying. It should have been obvious to anyone trying to dialogue intelligently and respectfully that I was referring to alcohol-related crimes and deaths, not specifically vehicular alcohol-related deaths.

Additionally, even if I were, your trite response is not logical. Incidence rates do not describe the overall number of times something is occurring, but rather the rate at which it is occurring, and could be compared regardless of the overall number of cars on the road. But that's not what I was talking about.

I'm done discussing this with you.


That's what cracks me up about you guys..... you take things way off subject- talking about things besides whether wine in the Bible had alcohol in it or not (and I answered easily that some did and some didn't, depending on whether or not it had time to ferment) and then the conversation took off into bacon, ham, donuts and twinkees and stuff and then "alcohol related deaths during prohibition" - and then when you get "beat up" in the dialogue you say that I didn't stick with the subject so you're going to take your toys and go home!

Here's what I was drawn in to say in regard to the subject:
"......Brad - it's obvious to me that you are a man of intelligence. And I really love your zeal and excitement for the Gospel - even though I feel it to be somewhat misguided. I've argued from the Scriptural point of view successfully that the word "wine" in the English translations of the Bible is used of both fresh grape juice and fermented grape juice. There is no way to "prove" that Jesus drank fermented grape juice if you understand what the word "prove" means. Even if you could you know that He did - fermented wine had a different place in the first century in Israel than it does nowadays. You can't really compare the 2.

Paul's admonishment for Timothy to "drink a little wine for his stomach's sake" indicates that although Timothy needed it for medicinal purposes he was refusing to take it in order to preserve his testimony and not permit for his good to be evil spoken of. If Paul had to instruct him to do so then Timothy was reluctant to for some reason, even though it would be good medicine. Most people don't consider that Timothy was from Lystra and he was on a missionary journey to Ephesus when Paul instructed him to do so. "Don't drink the water" is a common directive to people who travel on missionary journeys because your body is conditioned for your "local" water source and there are often different parasites and microorganisms associated with different water sources from different places. To use that situation to justify drinking alcoholic beverages in America in the 21st century is really a poor application of Scripture that amounts to twisting it to justify something that it certainly is not in any way promoting.

I am concerned about the way you portray Jesus as your "sipping Savior." It seems trite and disrespectful to me - especially since there is no way possible to prove He ever did drink alcoholic beverages. What if He never did and you are painting an inaccurate picture of Him as a social drinker? Are you not even concerned about that?

Probably you and I could be friends if we were geographically located close to each other - and disagree on this without it being a "deal-breaker." But I would not sit around with you while you drink alcoholic beverages- it would be s stumbling block to me.

I realize the controversy over this subject and although as an apologist and somewhat skilled debater I have no problem creating the appearance of "winning" the argument Scripturally and it's even easier to do so from a practical viewpoint. The arguments "against" total abstinence simply don't hold water.

I can submit in closing that even if you think it is "allowed" - it definitely is not "best" and certainly not "wise." And both Scripturally and practically - I win:

New International Version
"I have the right to do anything," you say--but not everything is beneficial. "I have the right to do anything"--but not everything is constructive.

New Living Translation
You say, "I am allowed to do anything"--but not everything is good for you. You say, "I am allowed to do anything"--but not everything is beneficial.

English Standard Version
All things are lawful, but not all things are helpful. All things are lawful, but not all things build up.

New American Standard Bible
All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful, but not all things edify.

King James Bible
All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
Everything is permissible," but not everything is helpful. "Everything is permissible," but not everything builds up.

Abstinence is simply the wiser and better choice."

Respond to that.
Golf Cart Mafia Underboss
Posts: 3563
8/19/15 3:48 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: Hilarious bradfreeman
spartanfan wrote:
you are going back to a different era. Move up into the 21st century. In that era (1920-1933) the automobile was fairly young and the number of cars on the road was steadily increasing with each year - thus you would have more people drinking and driving whether it was prohibition or not. Are you trying to say that fewer people died in alcohol related auto accidents in the earlier 1900's than did during prohibition because prohibition increased drunk driving? Do you not realize that the number of vehicles on the roads was dramatically increasing during the age of automation? Do you think I should say more people died of alcohol related horseback and horse drawn carriage accidents before prohibition than during prohibition, proving prohibition made the streets safer? So to say the number of deaths went up as the auto industry was really "taking off" in America then has nothing to do with now. Way more cars on the road during prohibition makes your comparison ridiculous.

Are you saying that we would have more alcohol related auto deaths now if we sold absolutely zero alcoholic beverages in America? Are you saying removing all alcohol from the stores and restaurants today would make the number of alcohol related auto deaths rise today? That is crazy. That's the kind of stuff people do to try to justify their unjustifiable sin.

You guys need to get out of the 1st century in Israel and the Roaring 20's so we can have an intelligent conversation about what's best for our kids and grandkids in the 21st century in America.


The mere fact that something poses risk and does, on occasion, facilitate harm, doesn't mean society is better off without it.

Freedom is risky.
Faith has killed plenty.

Our goal shouldn't be to create zero risk. It is enjoy abundant life - the God-kind of life.
_________________
I'm not saved because I'm good. I'm saved because He's good!

My website: www.bradfreeman.com
My blog: http://bradcfreeman.tumblr.com/
Acts-dicted
Posts: 9027
8/19/15 3:55 pm


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post krista
Eddie Robbins wrote:
Am I wrong?

"One of the primary benefits of our liberty in Christ is freedom from the domination of negative forces (John 8:32, 36; Romans 6:14; 8:2). We are counseled not to put ourselves again under bondage (Galatians 5:1). Therefore, a Christian must totally abstain from all alcoholic beverages and other habit-forming and mood-altering chemical substances and refrain from the use of tobacco in any form, marijuana and all other addictive substances, and further, must refrain from any activity (such as gambling or gluttony) which defiles the body as the temple of God or which dominates and enslaves the spirit that has been made free in Christ (Proverbs 20:1; 23:20-35; Isaiah 28:7; 1 Corinthians 3:17; 5:11; 6:10; 2 Corinthians 7:1; James 1:21)."


You aren't COG for sure/
Golf Cart Mafia Capo
Posts: 2916
8/19/15 4:04 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post bradfreeman
Nature Boy Florida wrote:
Proverbs 31 to be removed from inspired versions...too legalistic...

Quote:
Proverbs31:4 ...it is not for kings to drink wine; nor for princes strong drink:
5 Lest they drink, and forget the law, and pervert the judgment of any of the afflicted. KJV


We don't remove legalistic verses from the Bible. But we do understand that we aren't under the "sticks and stones" portions anymore.

Stick and stones...

Numb 15:32 Now while the sons of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering wood on the sabbath day. 33 Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and to all the congregation; 34 and they put him in custody because it had not been declared what should be done to him. 35 Then the Lord said to Moses, The man shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp. 36 So all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him to death with stones, just as the Lord had commanded Moses.
_________________
I'm not saved because I'm good. I'm saved because He's good!

My website: www.bradfreeman.com
My blog: http://bradcfreeman.tumblr.com/
Acts-dicted
Posts: 9027
8/19/15 4:12 pm


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Nature Boy Florida
bradfreeman wrote:
Nature Boy Florida wrote:
Proverbs 31 to be removed from inspired versions...too legalistic...

Quote:
Proverbs31:4 ...it is not for kings to drink wine; nor for princes strong drink:
5 Lest they drink, and forget the law, and pervert the judgment of any of the afflicted. KJV


We don't remove legalistic verses from the Bible. But we do understand that we aren't under the "sticks and stones" portions anymore.

Stick and stones...

Numb 15:32 Now while the sons of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering wood on the sabbath day. 33 Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and to all the congregation; 34 and they put him in custody because it had not been declared what should be done to him. 35 Then the Lord said to Moses, The man shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp. 36 So all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him to death with stones, just as the Lord had commanded Moses.


Sorry man.

i quoted Proverbs...wisdom for all people.

Not exactly sure how you read that I quoted Numbers - items specifically for israel - but you are off on an incorrect tangent again - answering questions no one actually asks.
_________________
Whether you like it or not, learn to love it, because its the best thing going today!
Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 15923
8/19/15 6:59 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post bradfreeman
Yu
Nature Boy Florida wrote:
bradfreeman wrote:
Nature Boy Florida wrote:
Proverbs 31 to be removed from inspired versions...too legalistic...

Quote:
Proverbs31:4 ...it is not for kings to drink wine; nor for princes strong drink:
5 Lest they drink, and forget the law, and pervert the judgment of any of the afflicted. KJV


We don't remove legalistic verses from the Bible. But we do understand that we aren't under the "sticks and stones" portions anymore.

Stick and stones...

Numb 15:32 Now while the sons of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering wood on the sabbath day. 33 Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and to all the congregation; 34 and they put him in custody because it had not been declared what should be done to him. 35 Then the Lord said to Moses, The man shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp. 36 So all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him to death with stones, just as the Lord had commanded Moses.


Sorry man.

i quoted Proverbs...wisdom for all people.

Not exactly sure how you read that I quoted Numbers - items specifically for israel - but you are off on an incorrect tangent again - answering questions no one actually asks.


Solomon was the wisdom of the world until Jesus came.

But of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from Godand righteousness and sanctification and redemption
‭‭I Corinthians‬ ‭1:30‬ ‭

Jesus is our wisdom now.
_________________
I'm not saved because I'm good. I'm saved because He's good!

My website: www.bradfreeman.com
My blog: http://bradcfreeman.tumblr.com/
Acts-dicted
Posts: 9027
8/19/15 9:18 pm


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Nature Boy Florida
bradfreeman wrote:
Yu
Nature Boy Florida wrote:
bradfreeman wrote:
Nature Boy Florida wrote:
Proverbs 31 to be removed from inspired versions...too legalistic...

Quote:
Proverbs31:4 ...it is not for kings to drink wine; nor for princes strong drink:
5 Lest they drink, and forget the law, and pervert the judgment of any of the afflicted. KJV


We don't remove legalistic verses from the Bible. But we do understand that we aren't under the "sticks and stones" portions anymore.

Stick and stones...

Numb 15:32 Now while the sons of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering wood on the sabbath day. 33 Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and to all the congregation; 34 and they put him in custody because it had not been declared what should be done to him. 35 Then the Lord said to Moses, The man shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp. 36 So all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him to death with stones, just as the Lord had commanded Moses.


Sorry man.

i quoted Proverbs...wisdom for all people.

Not exactly sure how you read that I quoted Numbers - items specifically for israel - but you are off on an incorrect tangent again - answering questions no one actually asks.


Solomon was the wisdom of the world until Jesus came.

But of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from Godand righteousness and sanctification and redemption
‭‭I Corinthians‬ ‭1:30‬ ‭

Jesus is our wisdom now.


Ah - so Solomon's wisdom no longer works. Amazing.
_________________
Whether you like it or not, learn to love it, because its the best thing going today!
Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 15923
8/20/15 11:39 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post bradfreeman
Nature Boy Florida wrote:
bradfreeman wrote:
Yu
Nature Boy Florida wrote:
bradfreeman wrote:
Nature Boy Florida wrote:
Proverbs 31 to be removed from inspired versions...too legalistic...

Quote:
Proverbs31:4 ...it is not for kings to drink wine; nor for princes strong drink:
5 Lest they drink, and forget the law, and pervert the judgment of any of the afflicted. KJV


We don't remove legalistic verses from the Bible. But we do understand that we aren't under the "sticks and stones" portions anymore.

Stick and stones...

Numb 15:32 Now while the sons of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering wood on the sabbath day. 33 Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and to all the congregation; 34 and they put him in custody because it had not been declared what should be done to him. 35 Then the Lord said to Moses, The man shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp. 36 So all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him to death with stones, just as the Lord had commanded Moses.


Sorry man.

i quoted Proverbs...wisdom for all people.

Not exactly sure how you read that I quoted Numbers - items specifically for israel - but you are off on an incorrect tangent again - answering questions no one actually asks.


Solomon was the wisdom of the world until Jesus came.

But of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from Godand righteousness and sanctification and redemption
‭‭I Corinthians‬ ‭1:30‬ ‭

Jesus is our wisdom now.


Ah - so Solomon's wisdom no longer works. Amazing.


Solomon's wisdom is amazing. Jesus is even more amazing, the embodiment of wisdom.
_________________
I'm not saved because I'm good. I'm saved because He's good!

My website: www.bradfreeman.com
My blog: http://bradcfreeman.tumblr.com/
Acts-dicted
Posts: 9027
8/20/15 12:44 pm


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Eddie Robbins
Simple question: Was the wine that Jesus made at the wedding capable of causing someone to get drunk? Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 16029
8/20/15 1:20 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post bradfreeman
Eddie Robbins wrote:
Simple question: Was the wine that Jesus made at the wedding capable of causing someone to get drunk?


Yes. He made the best wine. The best wine is aged wine.
_________________
I'm not saved because I'm good. I'm saved because He's good!

My website: www.bradfreeman.com
My blog: http://bradcfreeman.tumblr.com/
Acts-dicted
Posts: 9027
8/20/15 5:17 pm


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Eddie Robbins
If it was, why would He do this knowing the lives that would be lost due to alcoholism? Why would He set such a bad example? No pastors here would have done that, yet, Jesus did? What do they know that Jesus didn't know? Don't you agree that the Word should have been clear on the subject of abstinence? Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 16029
8/20/15 7:03 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Really? Another round? spartanfan
International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, page 1070: "The most common mixture was wine diluted with water. The ratio of water to wine varied, but the quantity of water was almost always greater than that of wine. The favoured mixture for the Greeks was one part wine and three parts water...During Roman times the ordinary table beverage was wine mixed with water (see Ferguson). Since the water was not completely safe to drink, mixing wine with water had a purifying effect on the water (cf. 1Tim 5:23)."

Different time and different circumstances. You have good water available so you can't justify drinking something that is detrimental to you (proven) when anything beneficial in it can be gained from sources that have nothing detrimental to your health in it. You want to promote health? If you are serious about it then IMHO you're going to have to promote total abstinence.
It''s the wisest choice - absolutely no negatives can possibly be associated with it and some negatives definitely are associated with even a little wine.

Y'all keep going back to Christ's first miracle involving water becoming wine (oinos). It probably was NOT alcoholic.
John 4:46 says, "Once more he visited Cana in Galilee, where he had turned the water into wine (oinos). And there was a certain royal official whose son lay sick at Capernaum." Note the word "oinos." This is the wine that Jesus drank. The New Testament has another word that the Strong's Concordance says is used for alcoholic wine: gleukos. This was wine where the sugars had been allowed to ferment it. Strong's Concordance defines this word for wine as highly intoxicating, fermented wine. On the Day of Pentecost, the disciples are accused of having been drinking too much wine, gleukos, not oinos.

Some, however, made fun of them and said, "They have had too much wine (gleukos)."
Acts 2:13

The question isnt really"Can a Christian drink alcohol?"
It's "should a Christian drink alcohol?"

There are new studies out from various Doctors and Health Associations linking even light to moderate drinking to a greater increase of cancer. I read a couple just today:

1Department of Nutrition, Harvard T H Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA 02115, USA
2Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T H Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
3Channing Division of Network Medicine, Brigham and Womens Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
Correspondence to: E L Giovannucci egiovann@hsph.harvard.edu
Accepted 28 July 2015
Abstract
Objectives To quantify risk of overall cancer across all levels of alcohol consumption among women and men separately, with a focus on light to moderate drinking and never smokers; and assess the influence of drinking patterns on overall cancer risk.
Conclusion
Light to moderate drinking is associated with minimally increased risk of overall cancer. For men who have never smoked, risk of alcohol related cancers is not appreciably increased for light and moderate drinking (up to two drinks per day). However, for women who have never smoked, risk of alcohol related cancers (mainly breast cancer) increases even within the range of up to one alcoholic drink a day."

How about this one from Penn Medicine:
NEWS RELEASE JULY 10, 2014
New Study Shows Drinking Alcohol, Even Light-to-Moderate Amounts, Provides No Heart Health Benefit

If we use your line of reasoning then people will be promoting Mary Jane as a fine Christian alternative to a glass of wine:

New Study Finds Marijuana Safer Than Alcohol Or Tobacco
February 24, 2015 | by Justine Alford:

Using a novel method to measure the risk of mortality associated with the use of various legal and illegal drugs, scientists have confirmed what earlier studies have indicated: alcohol is the deadliest, while marijuana is the least risky.

According to the study, at the individual level, booze presents the highest risk of death, followed by nicotine, cocaine and heroin, suggesting the risks of alcohol consumption have likely been underestimated in the past. Marijuana was found to be significantly less deadly and sat at the other end of the spectrum, in agreement with previous research which has consistently ranked it as the safest recreational drug."

Where will it stop. Will Christians be smoking a joint and drinking a beer in front of their kids and expecting them to not be negatively effected by it? Say no now to all of it - promote abstinence because it's always the better choice.

As proven over and over again - we have other things to drink and we don't need wine/beer/strong drink for medicinal purposes and anything beneficial to be found there can be found in other sources with no threat of the negatives that are definitely found in them.

So it's not "can we?"- it's should we? The honest answer is no. So another round and I'm still standing tall in the winners circle on this one. Undeniably no. You should not. And anyone who promotes it as being the "best" choice for your health is believing and promoting a lie in my opinion. It is not the best - choose the best over what you think is the allowable. Promote abstinence, life and health if you really are interested in helping people live a better/healthier life. I know it's hard to do when you just enjoy the taste of that beverage going down the chute each evening. And it is habit forming too.

To my knowledge, Actscelerate discussions have never resulted in a changed lifestyle. I will not start drinking because of what you guys say about it and you won't quit because of the facts and good old common sense - and the Scriptures. But I appreciate the opportunity to hone my debating skills in case some poor misguided soul ever wants to try to get it out of the Practical Commitments Smile


[/b]
Golf Cart Mafia Underboss
Posts: 3563
8/20/15 8:56 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Not a problem... spartanfan
I just have a problem sitting back while the guys post comment after comment advocating social drinking or the questionable practice of "drinking a little wine for your stomach's sake" now in the 21st century without someone bringing it back into center. When something swings far left - I push it equally hard to the right and get it back into the middle. I just don't want the site to look like it pushes back against the doctrine and practices adopted by our church. I probably shouldn't care and just let it go.

But I always fall for their deliberate attempts to get us teetotalers all riled up over social drinking in the church. Notice how almost all of these threads start and who starts them. It's not guys like me and Ed. But when there's not much action on the board - this topic is brought up and gets the fire flying.

The Matthew 11:18-19 passage is interesting indeed. I would say that I've read numerous interpretations of it. Some understand the passage in the light of Luke 5:33 which says, "And they said unto him, Why do the disciples of John fast often, and make prayers, and likewise the disciples of the Pharisees; but thine eat and drink?" The often fasting of John and his disciples had been compared and contrasted with the non-fasting of Jesus and disciples. John fasted and didn't eat or drink with the people. Jesus did not come fasting but ate and drank with the people.

In His statement He never really confessed to being a gluttonous man and neither does He confess to having consumed alcoholic beverages. What He does say is that "they say" He was gluttonous (which I doubt He was) and they said that He was a drunkard (which I doubt He was - because having the choice I would think He would choose the non fermented juice).

I don't think that passage can be used to "prove" anything except that He didn't fast when with the people like John did and no matter which way one came preaching the Kingdom to them, in fasting or in fellowshipping at the table - they falsely accused the bearer of the Good News. When I look at the whole body of Scriptures concerning alcohol in the Bible (OT and NT) that seems to be the most consistent interpretation as far as I'm concerned.

Thanks for the kind words. And I don't mind at all you coming to the rescue of our mutual friends - they have taken a pretty good beating and I didn't always fight fair so they needed some help. You're a fine peacemaker. I'll lighten up. Peace Smile
Golf Cart Mafia Underboss
Posts: 3563
8/21/15 12:16 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: To Spartanfan bradfreeman
Tom Sterbens wrote:
From an argumentation and debate standpoint: I think it is not only unfair, but perhaps less than objective to conclude that anyone who disagrees with you is one who drinks or is looking for license to do so. I will continue to stand on the 1 Cor 6, 8, 10 (etc.) line of redemptive reasoning that "just because we can, doesn't mean we should." For me, this includes many things in addition to drinking alcohol. But then for me it is not a thing since I don't like the taste of it whatsoever.

Next: I haven't read every post in this novel-length thread so I am sure someone must have brought up (among many) a sort of obvious scripture.
    Matthew 11:18-19 (NASB95)
    18 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, "He has a demon!"
    19 "The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Behold, a gluttonous man and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!' Yet wisdom is vindicated by her deeds."

These words of course were spoken by Jesus, as you know.
As you noted (and this scripture references) John did not drink wine.
Jesus then states, unlike John, He drank. It seems they would not have accused Him of being a drunkard if that which he was drinking held no capacity to render him drunk. Further contextual consideration contrasts it against that which John did "not" drink, which clearly had the capacity to render one inebriated.

I have respect for you and your ministry and do not seek in any way to demean or diminish either one. In fact, I have another brother I admire greatly, Ed Brewer, whose amazing mind and articulation can represent one of the greatest arguments from a very similar perspective as yours. He and I just disagree.

The reason neither he nor you have changed my mind mind is not due to the absence of common sense or an appreciation of scripture (as you mentioned), but rather it is because of the presence of both. But that's me.

Last: I do share your concern that some on this forum (and thread) may be looking for the opportunity to license unnecessary and ultimately destructive indulgences. For me, there is where the sin potential lies.

Sorry for the length. Thanks.


Be careful Tom, I had an entire thread removed because it suggested that alcohol consumption is OK:

Doyle wrote:
I removed it. About 90 percent of our viewers are COG. Though some feel the COG "standards" are archaic, others are very much in favor of them. Some COG ministers are more "enlightened" than others about alcohol consumption, but many are not. I felt the post gave the impression of endorsing alcohol consumption. That may not have been the intent of the post but it seemed to come across like that.

_________________
I'm not saved because I'm good. I'm saved because He's good!

My website: www.bradfreeman.com
My blog: http://bradcfreeman.tumblr.com/
Acts-dicted
Posts: 9027
8/21/15 5:45 am


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Eddie Robbins
spartanfan, after all the discussions, the best you came up with was the wine that Jesus made "probably" didn't have alcohol. That's a good guess. Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 16029
8/21/15 6:37 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Actscelerate.com Forum Index -> Feature Presentations This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Page 7 of 8

 
Jump to:  
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Acts-celerate Terms of Use | Acts-celerate Policy
World News Network | Acts-celerate Chat
Contact the Administrator.


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group :: Spelling by SpellingCow.