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 
r/Actscelerate

Wine or Welch's? Let's do this one more time
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
 
   Actscelerate.com Forum Index -> Acts-Celerate Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Message Author
Post Water into "oinos" spartanfan
The word oinos is used five times in John 2:1-11, twice by John the writer of the gospel, once by the mother of Jesus, and twice by the governor or master of the wedding in Cana.

Oinos is the one word for wine used in the New Testament (with one exception) and it represents wine (or grape juice) at all stages including while still "in the grape". The exception is in Acts 2:13, where gleukos is used and translated "new wine."

Vine says that "OINOS is the general word for wine" (p. 219). This one word in the New Testament and the Greek includes different Old Testament Hebrew words for wine.

Thayer says the Greek word oinos translates, in the Septuagint Version, not only the Hebrew word yayin, but also the Hebrew words tiyrosh and hemer (p. 442). Tiyrosh is the word in Isa. 65:8: "As the new wine is found in the cluster.... " In the Greek translation this is the same word (oinos) as is used all five times in John 2:1-11.

What does all of this prove? The word oinos used in John 2:1-11 is a general word covering all stages of the juice of the grape (fermented and unfermented), including the juice in the grape still in the cluster on the vine in Isaiah 65:8.

That proves Jesus, in turning the water into "wine," could have, and may have, made unfermented grape juice. That is all I have to prove in order to hold my opinion. I just did that (with Vine, Thayer, Arrington and their ilks). But those who take the view that Jesus approved of the social and recreational use of alcohol and drugs must prove that the "wine" Jesus made could only refer to fermented, intoxicating wine. That is impossible to prove. Impossible!
So Arrington and his ilk cannot be proven false - and those who call the foresaid ilk to be teaching what is "false" presume that their teaching is the only possible explanation. That is false according to Vine and Thayer.


Was it fermented or not? Looking at the scriptures like where Solomon said in Proverbs 23:31,32: "Do not look on the wine when it is red, When it sparkles in the cup, When it swirls around smoothly; At the last it bites like a serpent, and stings like a viper" - you get a very dim picture of wine with alcohol in it. There is no question about the kind of wine he speaks of in that verse. Do you believe what he said - that in the end (at the last) it bites like a serpent, and stings like a viper? Why then try to make Jesus and the Bible contradict such plain statements?

The wine Jesus made to be served to those who were "well drunk" - if it contained alcohol - made their situation worse. His additional alcohol could have been the straw that broke the donkey's back - literally - as someone already well drunk, drank some more that Jesus made and got in a donkey accident on the way home thus injuring the donkey (breaking his back), the rider and maybe even some innocent bystanders. If only Jesus would have made nonalcoholic wine - He could have stopped the accident and not have had a hand in the formation of the "Mothers against drunk donkey driving" group in first century Israel.
Golf Cart Mafia Underboss
Posts: 3638
12/19/18 11:45 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post FLRon
It is absurd to believe that those who penned the New Testament in Greek could not have used the Greek words for grape juice if it had indeed been grape juice.

Then again, people will go to the ends of the earth to convince themselves of something if they want to believe it strongly enough.
_________________
“Hell will be filled with people that didn’t cuss, didn’t drink, and may even have been baptized. Why? Because none of those things makes someone a Christian.”
Voddie Baucham
Acts-celerater
Posts: 760
12/20/18 7:35 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Really? That's all you got? spartanfan
FLRon wrote:
It is absurd to believe that those who penned the New Testament in Greek could not have used the Greek words for grape juice if it had indeed been grape juice.

Then again, people will go to the ends of the earth to convince themselves of something if they want to believe it strongly enough.


Ha! Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament words is hardly "the end of the world." It is in the library of nearly every minister I know. I suppose you are much more of a Bible words scholar than the likes of Vine, Thayer and Arrington. At least in your own mind. If oinos can mean wine at any stage (Welch's Grape Juice to Boone's Farm) as the real experts say it can then how can you be so dogmatic?
Golf Cart Mafia Underboss
Posts: 3638
12/20/18 7:51 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: Really? That's all you got? Dave Dorsey
spartanfan wrote:
If oinos can mean wine at any stage (Welch's Grape Juice to Boone's Farm) as the real experts say it can then how can you be so dogmatic?

ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL

This is the biggest own goal I have seen in a long time.
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 13654
12/20/18 7:57 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post The 21st Century New Theological Wordbook spartanfan
I guess we'll all need to add to our collection of Word Study Books and Dictionaries so we can communicate on the level of the many Actscelerate proponents of drinking alcohol the new "Goofy's Theological Wordbook of the New Testament." That way we can go apostate on everything we no longer like and feel justified in our own goofy minds to abandon sound doctrine.

Here's the summation of wisdom in this matter: I emphasize again that while it can be proven from the Bible that "wine" was used medicinally and sacrificially with God's approval, I do not believe it can be proven that God approves of the social and recreational use of alcohol and drugs. If there's no proof either way then common sense and sound reasoning should prevail.


I have known members of the church of God who drank alcoholic beverages. But I cannot remember even one case where those people could say that they never in their life crossed the "legal limit" according to the world's standard (which should be lower than the church's) in regard to crossing the line into intoxication. And I have seen grown men with trembling hands and tears running down their cheeks saying they wished they had never taken the first drink. I have heard Christians who have been enslaved to alcohol, as well as drugs, plead with our young people never to make the mistake of taking the first drink. And all of our former drinkers who have been through Celebrate Recovery are very strong in regard to total abstinence and want to attend a church that believes in it.

Do you really believe that Jesus ever approved of something so enslaving and so dangerous?

Solomon said: "Do not look on the wine when it is red, When it sparkles in the cup, When it swirls around smoothly; At the last it bites like a serpent, and stings like a viper" (Prov. 23:31, 32). If Jesus agreed with the wisdom of that scripture - does it make sense that he gave already well drunk men and women 180 more gallons of an alcoholic beverage to drink? Common sense please - oinos can mean either according to Vine's and Thayer's. Why not use the common sense and most consistent with the general attitude toward wine and drunkenness in the Bible interpretation?

Or we can use Goofy's Theological Wordbook of the New Testament as our guide.
Golf Cart Mafia Underboss
Posts: 3638
12/20/18 9:17 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Here's What I was Told FG Minister
Uncle Daddy’s pastor said, “I think wine is of the devil,” and if he says it’s wrong, it must be wrong. He’s the best theologian we’ve ever had in this holler.

And my professor at Acme Bible College said that wine only causes people to get drunk and you should never take even a single drink. If Dr. Acme said it, that’s good enough for me. And let me tell all of you something – if the King James Version was good enough for Paul and Silas, it’s good enough for me!

But we still don’t know why elders can have no grape juice and deacons can have some grape juice.
Acts-celerater
Posts: 872
12/20/18 11:15 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: Link Link
spartanfan wrote:
Although you write intelligently, you obviously come from a different angle than I do on the subject. We can agree to totally disagree.

However, I don't think you should have started your explanation defending FLRon in his attack on French Arrington (which was totally out of place and disrespectful of one deserving respect).

His words were "You can have the false teaching of Arrington and his ilk and go on blindly following the blind." You can't whitewash that "the false teaching of Arrington" remark. False teachers teach lies as truth. I think it would have been wiser and better for the discussion if he would have left Dr. Arrington's name out of it and just said something like "you can have your false teaching and go on being like the blind following the blind" - without mentioning the name of one of the greatest teachers to ever open the Bible in Church of God history. I think blasting the name is what got under my skin and caused me to go on the counter attack.


I didn't make the comment, so it is a bit odd that you would respond to me about it rather than the details of my post. He did use the word 'false teaching.' I did not catch where he said 'false teacher.' That term is used in II Peter 2 to describe men who would appear to be damned and damning others. As far as I saw, you introduced that term and took it further than FLRon did.

Would you agree with me that evidence that the early Christians drank low-acohol wine mixed with water--and that this was okay-- is evidence that Christians today may drink low-alcohol wine mixed with water, and that this is now okay? It is not a case for the idea that Christians are required to abstain totally. One glass of 'modern' wine may have as much alcohol content as the several glasses of diluted wine the apostles might have drunk at dinner. So would that have been forbidden? It is likely the apostles were drinking watered down wine at the Last Supper with our Lord.

Jesus also came 'eating and drinking'-- apparently drinking stuff John the Baptist did not.

Clearly, the Southeastern Holiness and Pentecostal old timey perspective that wine and beer are evil substances and that any consumption of them that is not strictly medicinal is unbiblical and extreme.

And like I pointed out, you'd need to do more research on international Pentecostalism to see if the whole movement embraces teetotalerism to the extent you argue. It's an international movement.

Wine and beer do not seem to be much a part of the average persons life in parts of Indonesia. A wife's uncle offered me a beer once, and they may offer it as gifts for matriarchal uncles at weddings and funerals. My wife's folks are not from a predominantly Muslim area. But I don't even remember being offered wine outside of communion over there. But they do have wine in GBI (COG) communion services over there. It's mixed, but they put some it in. I don't remember ever drinking anything that tasted like Welch's. That's part of Pentecostalism. I've never heard teetotalerism preached. I've never been to a GPDI service that I recall, either. They dress a bit more conservatively. I don't know if they preach teetotalers. I don't remember teetotalerism being preached in a GBI.

And if 90% of Pentecostals were against any consumption of alcohol outside of cough medicine, what does that prove? Pentecostals have believed and practiced some crazy and doctrinally-off things. Truth is truth whether Pentecostals believe it or not. Let's talk about definitions of logos and rhema. The COG used to have snake handling in the services. And before that, there was some leapfrogging in some of the church services in the movement (Not sure the name at the time).

Quote:

Obviously there are points on both sides of the issue to be made. My summary that the best- most logical and practical as well as the most biblical position in the eyes of the two largest Pentecostal denominations in the world is that of total abstinence.


Since early Christians did not engage in total abstinence, therefore we should. Got it.

'Total abstinence' makes me think of sex, by the way. Isn't requiring lifelong celibacy along the same lines of requiring total abstinence from alcohol? Both are cases of requiring 'total abstinence' where the Bible does not.

Quote:
So we disagree and that's okay. But we don't need to label individuals as "false teachers" just because we disagree with them.


I did not do that, and if I am not mistaken, you threw the label into the conversation.
_________________
Link
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11845
12/20/18 11:37 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Da Sheik
I want to point out all of the conjecture and hyperbole that some here are projecting into the text. Here are some presumptions that help establish their straw man fallacy:

#1- They assume that the participants at the wedding were all falling down, sloppy drunk before the miracle. The text never says that.

#2- They assume that if Christ created 'real' wine it must have been triple-distilled, 100-proof. The text never says that

#3-They ignore the customs of the ancient world. 'Oinos' was probably the most common drink of the people of that day. There was nothing scandalous about it. As Link mentioned, it likely would have been mixed with water.

#4-Grasping for a silver bullet, they claim that 'oinos' could refer either to wine or grape juice. Do a search for Strong's number G3631. Tell me in each instance where we should substitute grape juice for wine. There is a greek word for grapes. It is ''staphule'. (pronounced staf-oo-lay)

Sparty, I have attempted to remain civil with you, despite you calling me, Dave, FG Minister, Link and others "apostates". I hate to sound condescending, but if you presented your "evidence" to a group of seminary students that had some Greek under their belt, they would laugh you to scorn on this.
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1860
12/20/18 12:25 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Ha spartanfan
Would they laugh at French too? Maybe that shows what’s wrong with some of them? Golf Cart Mafia Underboss
Posts: 3638
12/20/18 12:44 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Oh really, how condescending can you get? spartanfan
French Arrington said, “We cannot be certain that what Jesus created had alcoholic content. The headmaster of the feast was impressed with what Jesus produced, declaring, “Every man serves the good wine first and when men have drunk freely, then that which is poorer; but you have kept the good wine until now” (2:10). His comment was probably on how good the wine tasted, that is, its quality, not on the alcoholic content.. "
That is the essence of what I quoted and it is what French Arrington said and FLRon proclaimed that what "Arrington and his ilks” taught is “false teaching.”

And then Da Sheik says to me, “I hate to sound condescending, but if you presented your "evidence" to a group of seminary students that had some Greek under their belt, they would laugh you to scorn on this.”
Really? Think about what you are saying!

That does sound quite “condescending” when you consider that my evidence comes from Dr. French Arrington. I quoted his position in my rebuttal to the apostate statements.

And you are in essence saying that if I presented what Dr. French Arrington published “to a group of seminary students that had some Greek under their belt, they would laugh you to scorn on this.”

I quoted Dr. French Arrington who earned his PhD in 1975 from St. Louis University, St. Louis, MO in “Biblical Languages with specialization in the Pauline Corpus”. His dissertation: Paul's Aeon Theology in I Corinthians.

Arrington was on the editorial committee for the journal “The Pentecastal Minister” and for “The Full Life Study Bible (subsequently named Life in the Spirit Study Bible and now Fire Bible”. He was a general editor of the “Life in the Spirit New Testament Commentary” and contributor of the exposition on Luke-Acts in the commentary.

Dr. Arrington is well known for his published works on the New Testament. His books include two scholarly monographs: “Paul's Aeon Theology in I Corinthians” and “New Testament Exegesis”.

He was a contributor to Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements, The Complete Biblical Library, and The New International Dictionary of Pentecostal Charismatic Movements.

He served on the editorial committee of the journal The Penetecostal Minister and was Greek editor for the four-volume set entitled A Biblical Theology of the Holy Spirit and contributed to volume 4 of the set: Contemporary Issues in Pneumatology. Hendrickson Publishers published his work Acts of the Apostles: Introduction, Translation and Commentary.

He also served as Professor of New Testament Greek and Exegesis at the Pentecostal Theological Seminary.

And you say that if I read his position paper that says "We cannot be certain that what Jesus created had alcoholic content" as my "evidence" to “a group of seminary students that had some Greek under their belt, they would laugh you to scorn on this,” … like that means anything at all.

Again, Dr. French Arrington said, “We cannot be certain that what Jesus created had alcoholic content.”

And that is all that I need to prove in order to hold my opinion in this discussion. You, however, need to prove that oinos must exclusively refer to wine with alcohol in it in order to discredit what Dr. Arrington (Greek scholar) says about it – which is impossible to prove.

So while the “group of seminary students laugh me to scorn” over the opinion I share with the former Professor of New Testament Greek and Exegesis at the Pentecostal Theological Seminary- he along with some other members of the faculty who appreciate Dr. Arrington's knowledge of the Biblical Greek language might be “rolling on the floor holding their bellies laughing” over your self-described condescending attitude expressed in your erroneous dogmatic statements about the word “oinos.”

Da Sheik or Dr. French Arrington? I for one will side with who is perhaps one of the greatest New Testament Greek scholars in Church of God history. Now, laugh me to scorn over that and see who looks like the fool.
Golf Cart Mafia Underboss
Posts: 3638
12/22/18 10:08 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: Oh really, how condescending can you get? Dave Dorsey
spartanfan wrote:
I quoted his position in my rebuttal to the apostate statements.

The amount of bad faith you are injecting into this discussion is truly astonishing.
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 13654
12/22/18 11:22 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post p5harri
A position paper is merely a document that seeks to defend one side of a debate. It’s not binding, authoritative or represent the final word on a matter.

The fact that a noted Pentecostal Scholar wrote an opinion / paper for a Pentecostal institution that has always had the position of abstinence makes it all the more suspect of having started with a presupposition and used that paper to defend his position.
_________________
We are beating the bushes for mice and the lions are tearing us apart.
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1705
12/22/18 11:39 am


View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Reply with quote
Post Re: Oh really, how condescending can you get? spartanfan
spartanfan wrote:
French Arrington said, “We cannot be certain that what Jesus created had alcoholic content. The headmaster of the feast was impressed with what Jesus produced, declaring, “Every man serves the good wine first and when men have drunk freely, then that which is poorer; but you have kept the good wine until now” (2:10). His comment was probably on how good the wine tasted, that is, its quality, not on the alcoholic content.. "
That is the essence of what I quoted and it is what French Arrington said and FLRon proclaimed that what "Arrington and his ilks” taught is “false teaching.”

And then Da Sheik says to me, “I hate to sound condescending, but if you presented your "evidence" to a group of seminary students that had some Greek under their belt, they would laugh you to scorn on this.”
Really? Think about what you are saying!

That does sound quite “condescending” when you consider that my evidence comes from Dr. French Arrington. I quoted his position in my rebuttal to the apostate statements.

And you are in essence saying that if I presented what Dr. French Arrington published “to a group of seminary students that had some Greek under their belt, they would laugh you to scorn on this.”

I quoted Dr. French Arrington who earned his PhD in 1975 from St. Louis University, St. Louis, MO in “Biblical Languages with specialization in the Pauline Corpus”. His dissertation: Paul's Aeon Theology in I Corinthians.

Arrington was on the editorial committee for the journal “The Pentecastal Minister” and for “The Full Life Study Bible (subsequently named Life in the Spirit Study Bible and now Fire Bible”. He was a general editor of the “Life in the Spirit New Testament Commentary” and contributor of the exposition on Luke-Acts in the commentary.

Dr. Arrington is well known for his published works on the New Testament. His books include two scholarly monographs: “Paul's Aeon Theology in I Corinthians” and “New Testament Exegesis”.

He was a contributor to Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements, The Complete Biblical Library, and The New International Dictionary of Pentecostal Charismatic Movements.

He served on the editorial committee of the journal The Penetecostal Minister and was Greek editor for the four-volume set entitled A Biblical Theology of the Holy Spirit and contributed to volume 4 of the set: Contemporary Issues in Pneumatology. Hendrickson Publishers published his work Acts of the Apostles: Introduction, Translation and Commentary.

He also served as Professor of New Testament Greek and Exegesis at the Pentecostal Theological Seminary.

And you say that if I read his position paper that says "We cannot be certain that what Jesus created had alcoholic content" as my "evidence" to “a group of seminary students that had some Greek under their belt, they would laugh you to scorn on this,” … like that means anything at all.

Again, Dr. French Arrington said, “We cannot be certain that what Jesus created had alcoholic content.”

And that is all that I need to prove in order to hold my opinion in this discussion. You, however, need to prove that oinos must exclusively refer to wine with alcohol in it in order to discredit what Dr. Arrington (Greek scholar) says about it – which is impossible to prove.

So while the “group of seminary students laugh me to scorn” over the opinion I share with the former Professor of New Testament Greek and Exegesis at the Pentecostal Theological Seminary- he along with some other members of the faculty who appreciate Dr. Arrington's knowledge of the Biblical Greek language might be “rolling on the floor holding their bellies laughing” over your self-described condescending attitude expressed in your erroneous dogmatic statements about the word “oinos.”

Da Sheik or Dr. French Arrington? I for one will side with who is perhaps one of the greatest New Testament Greek scholars in Church of God history. Now, laugh me to scorn over that and see who looks like the fool.


You never answered my question: would you and your cronies "laugh Dr. French Arrington to scorn" if he read his paper to y'all?

But after you say all of that to me, with a statement that "I hate to sound condescending, but if you presented your "evidence" to a group of seminary students that had some Greek under their belt, they would laugh you to scorn on this."...... you then come back to the above rebuttal with only this: "The amount of bad faith you are injecting into this discussion is truly astonishing." Like you guys have been on the "high road"? Every time you are shut up by the fact that Dr. French Arrington said, “We cannot be certain that what Jesus created had alcoholic content”.... you just respond about my "tone" when you guys are referring to "Arrington and his ilk" and saying if his position was brought before a group of seminary students they would "laugh it to scorn".

You are exposed. The position that We cannot be certain that what Jesus created had alcoholic content made by one of our greatest Greek scholars of all time is all that I need to hold my opinion but the premise of all you say is that "oinos in the NT only refers to wine (with alcohol)" - which is something that absolutely cannot be proven according to Vine, Thayer and Arrington (who has not been given the respect he deserves in this thread.) Merry Christmas and good night!
Golf Cart Mafia Underboss
Posts: 3638
12/22/18 1:04 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: Oh really, how condescending can you get? Dave Dorsey
spartanfan wrote:
But after you say all of that to me, with a statement that "I hate to sound condescending, but if you presented your "evidence" to a group of seminary students that had some Greek under their belt, they would laugh you to scorn on this."...... you then come back to the above rebuttal with only this: "The amount of bad faith you are injecting into this discussion is truly astonishing."

It would be nice if you would put some effort into noting who is saying what. You have conflated two people's posts here. This is not the first time in this thread you have done that.
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 13654
12/22/18 1:07 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Okay, FLRon said.. spartanfan
FLRon wrote:
It is absurd to believe that those who penned the New Testament in Greek could not have used the Greek words for grape juice if it had indeed been grape juice.

Then again, people will go to the ends of the earth to convince themselves of something if they want to believe it strongly enough.


Evidently Dr. Arrington went to the ends of the earth to convince himself of that when he said, “We cannot be certain that what Jesus created had alcoholic content." Dr. Arrington can't be certain but FLRon can. Funny.
Golf Cart Mafia Underboss
Posts: 3638
12/22/18 1:42 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Da Sheik said spartanfan
"I hate to sound condescending, but if you presented your "evidence" to a group of seminary students that had some Greek under their belt, they would laugh you to scorn on this."(Da Sheik)

I said, "That does sound quite “condescending” when you consider that my evidence comes from Dr. French Arrington. And I asked the unanswered question, If Dr. French Arrington presented his statement to a group of seminary students that had some Greek under their belt, would they laugh him to scorn on this.
Golf Cart Mafia Underboss
Posts: 3638
12/22/18 1:47 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Here's your quote in response to my question..... spartanfan
Dave Dorsey wrote:
spartanfan wrote:
If oinos can mean wine at any stage (Welch's Grape Juice to Boone's Farm) as the real experts say it can then how can you be so dogmatic?

ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL

This is the biggest own goal I have seen in a long time.


You said that after I mentioned that Vine, Thayer state that oinos can mean wine at any stage and Arrington said “We cannot be certain that what Jesus created had alcoholic content."


You were rofl not at me but at the Greek experts. That was your great contribution to the discussion.
Golf Cart Mafia Underboss
Posts: 3638
12/22/18 1:53 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post And the worst and most idiotic statement... spartanfan
FLRon said "How sad that you would think any man's private interpretation of scripture would be elevated above the Word itself. French Arrington is absolutely wrong in his paper because he has rejected the Word in favor of his own interpretation. That you would promulgate his error says to me that you love to have your ears tickled. No thanks,I'll stand firmly on God's truth as revealed in the scriptures. You can have the false teaching of Arrington and his ilk and go on blindly following the blind." Golf Cart Mafia Underboss
Posts: 3638
12/22/18 2:10 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: Here's your quote in response to my question..... Dave Dorsey
spartanfan wrote:
Dave Dorsey wrote:
spartanfan wrote:
If oinos can mean wine at any stage (Welch's Grape Juice to Boone's Farm) as the real experts say it can then how can you be so dogmatic?

ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL

This is the biggest own goal I have seen in a long time.


You said that after I mentioned that Vine, Thayer state that oinos can mean wine at any stage and Arrington said “We cannot be certain that what Jesus created had alcoholic content."


You were rofl not at me but at the Greek experts. That was your great contribution to the discussion.

Lol. Why am I not surprised you misunderstood. I was commenting on your excellent (truly!) observation that the text does not support one being dogmatic on this issue. Cool
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 13654
12/22/18 2:12 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Huh? spartanfan
My statement has been all along that you "cannot" be dogmatic on whether or not it was fermented so my opinion is just as valuable as anyone's on the subject and Arrington says, "The headmaster of the feast was impressed with what Jesus produced, declaring, “Every man serves the good wine first and when men have drunk freely, then that which is poorer; but you have kept the good wine until now” (2:10). His comment was probably on how good the wine tasted, that is, its quality, not on the alcoholic content."

So then I appeal to common sense that since we have other things to drink without safety, health and disease concerns: the most practical, responsible, spiritual and mature position is that of total abstinence.

And since nobody can scripturally prove my points to be wrong - they attack my tone and Dr. Arrington's teaching as "false".

Since the arguemt from Da Sheik and FLRon and others took the angle that "oinos" can only refer to alcoholic wine - contradicting Vine, Thayer and Arrington then I proclaimed they were being dogmatic about something they cannot prove. In fact it is impossible to prove. So - I took the position that I won the debate - based on that.

And since there was no response to the "meat" of my argument - then all that could be challenged was my "tone." That proves my point too. But hey, it's been fun and we had great discussion (except maybe for my tone at times) and we can agree to disagree. I'll drink (grape juice) to that!
Golf Cart Mafia Underboss
Posts: 3638
12/22/18 2:40 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Actscelerate.com Forum Index -> Acts-Celerate Post new topic   Reply to topic
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Page 6 of 9

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot 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
Contact the Administrator.


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