Did Jesus Turn Water into Fermented or unfermented Wine?

He changed it into alcoholic wine.

Wine in and of itself is not sinful. Paul told Timothy to drink some for his ailing stomach.

Drinking a glass of wine can hardly be called drunkenness.

I believe Jesus drank a glass of wine at the Wedding of Cana.

In Christ,
Sarah

Yet another question is why would Christ have wine served to already drunk men? Weren't they drunk enough?

I have heard many discuss this and it usually gets no where in terms of a good solid interpretation of why and what was going on. One thing I have often read was the miracle of the wine was Christ showing mercy to the married couple and family. Jewish weddings were 7 days long and so to run out of wine when it was only the 3rd day (I believe) would have disgraced the family and couple and though for us it seems like a small thing would have held that against them as long as they lived there. Not to mention the entire town was usually invited to the weddings back then so you had to provide food and drink for everyone when you got married.

Christ made quite a bit of wine but it was going to last the couple and family the rest of the celebration to the very least. That is all I really hope to input in this thread because though I am hopeful its one of those topics that usually gets out of hand pretty quickly.

is a wine biblerer some one drinks grape juice

they called jesus such
i would think he changed the water in to wine ,and not grape juice

but it does soung like there are differnt strengt in wine

paull said be not drunk with wine but be filled with the spirit

paul must have been famillar with wine that could get you drunk ,,,
as did his readers,,,so exorted them accordingly

being that this was a jewish wedding ,people were underthe law ,,drunkeness was still sin under the old law was it not ,,,so im sure those at the feast would have been aware the danger of drukenss ,and being a drunk

if a parrent had a disobedent child under the old covernent
who was glutteness and a drunk ,,,,,,the law said that he could be put to death for this

im sure those at the wedding knew this

Now for a bit of historical input:

During the course of history from the Assyrian empire to at the very least the fall of Western Rome circa 460s AD, it was common practise to mix the wine with water and sometimes spices or even honey.

Spiced wine was drunk as the standard service through to medieval times at least.

So yes, of course our Lord changed the water into wine. But remember, it wasn't consumed straight.

In fact it was considered the mark of a barbarian (think scythians, sarmatians) to drink your wine straight.

I hope that assists the context.

thank you for all your input so far

He changed it into alcoholic wine.

Where is the Scriptural evidence for this idea?

Wine has two meanings in Scripture, depending on the context. (Look it up!) There is new wine (grape juice) and then there is old wine (alcohol). So when you see the word "wine" you need to study it out, comparing Scripture with Scripture and get the context of the passage.

I'm shocked at how many professing Christians today will stand up for liquor. It's just terrible, really. (Especially compared to how simple and clearcut this matter was to Christians 100 years ago!)

MityDisciple, you ought to study this out for yourself, not just believe everything you're given. Go to your pastor and talk with him about it. Just what you believe is a very serious matter no matter how much you abstain from it yourself.

May God go before you,
savedtoserve

yes i don't have a problem with dinking at all, but i do want to be sure what the bible is saying here, just want some different views , i find it helps coming conclusions...

Great, please just be careful [about receiving Biblical instruction on this matter from this forum].

My edit is in brackets.

Just because some believe this scripture is refering to alcoholic wine doesn't mean they are an advocates of drinking alcohol.

I believe this interpretation and at the same time no advocate of alcohol but in the state of the context and characters of the scripture see it as alcoholic wine.

@savedtoserve,

Since you asked another to provide Scriptural references, would you be so kind as to do the same?

Fausset says, “Scripture condemns the abuse, not the use, of wine.”

We have to think of this from a witnessing point. To witness to someone that Jesus never had a glass of fermented wine (or only straight wine) makes us look like the uneducated people that they already think Christians are; seriously.

Instead of arguing from the unfermented vs fermented standpoint with people, why don’t we take it a few steps further and just say, “yes Jesus drank fermented wine, but let’s talk about how Jesus never sinned!” Then let our witnessing about the things of God continue from there!

Getting drunk has nothing to do with having fermented wine available to us, but it DOES have everything to do with the sin in our hearts. Then we can ask if their heart is right on this issue but we should know the condition of ours before we venture there!

Just my two cents. God bless,
Lisa

who cares about such questions? Let me list some categories of people interested in such questions:

1) Pharisees
2) Poeple with a religious spirit
3) Scribes
4) ecclesiastical bloodhounds
5) Pharisees
6) Pharisees
7) Pharisees
8) Pharisees
9) Pharisees

Or simply the curious brother, I wouldn't be so quick to judge the intentions of the original post.

Maybe you are right, I don't know the intentions of this brother, but you have to admit, that there are many other discussions here...

I edited my list:

1) Pharisees
2) Poeple with a religious spirit
3) Scribes
4) ecclesiastical bloodhounds
5) Pharisees
6) Pharisees
7) Pharisees
8) Pharisees
9) or the curious brother

;-)

Actually scripture does not say that the people at the feast were drunk.

Joh 2:10 And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now.

It says when the man had well drunk, or when they had had plenty of wine already. You might say, "When they had already drank plenty of wine." You actually have to read something into the verse that is not there to say they were drunk.

Let me say first that I am of the opinion that a Christian, especially an American Christian, should refrain from drinking alcohol. I do not say this from any Biblical statements about drinking alcohol because I would be left without a leg to stand on scripturally. If we only look at scriptures that specifically refer to drinking we would have to conclude that we should, like Timothy, drink a little wine for our stomach sake.

However there are other reasons to abstain. In America if you are a believer and an unbeliever or a weak brother sees you exercising your freedom in drink he will most likely because of the cultural viewpoint on drinking be offended and be caused to stumble. I would rather abstain from bubble gum than to risk offending a weaker brother and causing him to stumble or offending the unbeliever and causing him to reject my message simply to gratify my flesh through exercising my liberty. Did not Paul say, "Gal 5:13 For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another."

So did Jesus turn it into fermented or unfermented wine? We are not told. However if we have to make an assumption by the definition of what wine is and how it is made we would have to logically say fermented unless we have a clear statement otherwise. That would be my opinion anyway.

Read duet. 14 verse 28It will end all debate.

1 Cor 6:5 I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you?

Prov 31:4 It is not for kings, O Lemuel, it is not for kings to drink wine; nor for princes strong drink

Jesus Christ is 'KING OF KINGS' and 'Prince of Peace', yet you have him not only making alcohol but drinking it as well. In this you drag his royalty through the muck and the mire of something unfit for either Kings or Princes.

Aussie,

You are right! This question has no relevance. The only question that is relevant is, "are we filled with the new wine of the Spirit".

Jesus was filled with the Spirit, are we?

I was reminded by the Holy Spirit of Luke 1:15.

Luke 1:15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.

This speaks of John the Baptist.

Then there is this.

Luk 7:33 For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine; and ye say, He hath a devil.

Luk 7:34 The Son of man is come eating and drinking; and ye say, Behold a gluttonous man, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners!

Here, the Holy Spirit is speaking of Jesus. And says that because Jesus is drinking wine, they are calling him a winebibber.

For religious people, this rankles them and they don't know what to do with this scripture. All in all, it is irrelevant, just like Mikey said.

I concur with Mike that we are to be filled with the Holy Spirit and not drunk with this world or the lusts of the flesh.

So Paul, knows very well that Believers in his day drank wine. Everyone did. The Holy Spirit would say this through Paul about excess.

Eph 5:18 And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;

Sarah

White_Stone wrote:
Jesus Christ is 'KING OF KINGS' and 'Prince of Peace', yet you have him not only making alcohol but drinking it as well. In this you drag his royalty through the muck and the mire of something unfit for either Kings or Princes.

I don’t know how much Jesus drank wine but I honestly believe that He did it WITHOUT getting drunk. To be fair to history, we cannot put our 21st century assumptions about alcohol onto 1st century Jewish people.

In conclusion, I’d like to point out that there are almost 69 references to water in the N.T., 28 references to wine, and only 1 reference to “spiced wine of the juice” in the book of Solomon, so it seems that the authors knew the difference between the meaning of “water,” “wine,” and even “juice” and therefore knew what they were talking about.

God bless you,
Lisa

"He was half man and half God; the half man needed food and water to sustain his body."

This isn't right, He was fully Man and Fully God or Deity. Or at least that was what I concluded after reading scripture. :)

Obviously, he drank something and enough of it to be called a "winebibber". In contrast to John.

And it is also obvious that he never got drunk.

If he turned water into wine and the wine was not alcoholic, please show me "wines" that have no alcohol in them, wine to my knowledge is an alcoholic beverage, this is why it's called wine.

From Wikipedia,
An alcoholic beverage is a drink containing ethanol, commonly known as alcohol. Alcoholic beverages are divided into three general classes: beers, wines, and spirits.

The remarks of the master of the feast, "The good wine has been kept until now" are unfortunately not helpful. Either the first natural batch of unfermented grape juice was deteriorating in flavor, then replaced by the supernatural batch, or the first batch was fermented and so was the second but was of better quality. Bottom line in my opinion, We do not know.

For wine to have alcohol, it MUST have leaven. Christ’s new wine representative of the Gospel, must be WITHOUT any mixture of leaven, which is representative of sin.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/784631/was_jesus_a_brewer.html?cat=22

Thanks for all the input again....I am still unsure about Jesus's Miracle here but to me it seems that90% of the time when wine is mentioned in the bible it refers to alcoholic wine. There is lots of differing views on the subject.. WOW...

This isn't right, He was fully Man and Fully God or Deity. Or at least that was what I concluded after reading scripture. :)

These were just my opinions, I am bowing out now!

God bless,
Lisa

Sorry if i frustrated anyone with this question,I didn't mean for anyone to get all bent out of shape over it.

MityDisciple

Sorry if i frustrated anyone with this question,I didn't mean for anyone to get all bent out of shape over it.

No apology needed, if someone does not like the nature of a thread, they should just not post if they disagree with the nature of it, they are just as guilty for bringing strife into it. JMO

Julius21....Very well said, Krispy.

I totally agree.

Good points, Approved.

Leaven was simply used as an analogy. If it were truly a representation of sin, then the people of God would have been instructed to eat only unleavened bread AT ALL TIMES.

However, it is typically eaten at Passover (because "they left in a hurry" when they fled Pharaoh and had no time for the bread to be leavened). However, there was no prohibition about eating leavened bread at times other than the Feast of Unleavened Bread. At all other times, breads with yeast are permitted. In fact, "challah" is the traditional leavened bread eaten during the Sabbath, Rosh Hashana and prior to Yom Kippur.

So, leaven is used merely as an analogy and descriptor rather than a representation symbol. It is akin to Jesus saying that we should not "cast our pearls before swine" (Matthew 7:6). It doesn't mean that physical pearls are good or bad. It was just an analogy used to highlight an important principle.

As for wine:

I would remind everyone that wine in Biblical times was very different than wine in modern times. Wine was important to the diet because there was NO REFRIGERATION during that time. It was typically boiled (with yeast added) in order to preserve the drink, although it was also simply preserved by storage in light-resistant containers. However, even this would ferment naturally (the sugars and natural fruit yeasts would cause fermentation). Even the traditional winemakers during that time would store wine for years for maturity -- and wine that was a year old was still considered "new wine."

Most importantly, wine in "Biblical" times was typically mixed. It was a staple drink of a time where water and fresh fruit juice was as scarce as a river, stream or working well. It was not used simply as a means to get drunk. Modern wine has an alcohol content of approximately 9-11%. Typical mixed wine consumed daily during Biblical times had an alcohol content of about 2-3%. For the most part, this wouldn't even be enough to be regulated as "alcohol" in modern times...because the body quickly processes it (unless someone were to consume massive amounts of it).

Modern wine -- in the age of refrigeration and modern preservation -- is used for entirely different reasons. While it is still "natural," it is now used as a supplemental (rather than staple) drink. A large glass of wine has about as much alcohol content as a large glass of beer. Moreover, it is often produced (at least partially) for the alcohol content. "Synthetic" and non-natural alcohol (such as vodka, whiskey, etc...) has an enormous amount of alcohol content whereas even a small amount could potentially impair the person drinking it.

So, yes, I do believe that the wine in the Bible contained alcohol. In fact, most fruits contain naturally occurring alcohol -- even at trace amounts. I suppose that the underlying concept is that the Bible speaks against getting drunk. A person should NOT get drunk. It is the drunkenness -- and accompanying deprivation of the mind -- that is targeted by Biblical commands.

That said: I do not drink. While there are some very prominent health benefits to red wine, there are plenty of things to drink that I can consume without the negativity or risk associated with wine. For instance, clean and refreshing tap water is readily available in most of the western world. Personally, I very much like pomegranate juice -- which has many of the same health benefits as red wine.

"'I do not believe this.!!!! Honestly this is incredible!!!! There are saints spilling their blood for Christ around around the world and you are discussing this!!! People this is so superficial!!! I thoight there was more depth in this forum.'"

Martyr, if you do not want to discuss this topic, I would suggest that you simply do not post on the thread. Please stop trying to make people feel guilty for discussing anything other than "saints spilling their blood for Christ around around the world" (and I say that with MUCH respect for them) or the such like. That was not the only thing Jesus, Paul, Peter, etc., etc., talked about, and that is not the only issue in our world today. "Prove all things" (ALL things) the Scripture says, which includes your view of ANY verse in the Bible. That is a COMMAND from the Lord that you should respect and obey. I agree that this issue is maybe not as important as the persecuted saints, but that does NOT mean it is wrong, unspiritual, etc., to talk about it; in other words, debates should not be limited to things that only you think are important. This is a forum. And I say all that kindly.

Sorry if i frustrated anyone with this question,I didn't mean for anyone to get all bent out of shape over it.

I would ask that we maintain a right spirit as this thread plays out. It seems to be ramping-up a bit and I think unnecessarily. Each one must be persuaded in their own minds. This subject is relevant in our times, there are strong opinions and views, but lets try to move in a more gentle inquiry.

Hi Julius21...

That's funny. "clean and refreshing tap water".

No offense intended but most people's "tap water" is full of chlorine.

Chlorine, fluorine (fluoride) and bromine, all lodge in the thyroid gland and that is why there is an epidemic of thyroid problems in the west.

I'm not sure what you mean by "epidemic" of thyroid problems. At least according to the bulk of peer-reviewed clinical studies, the chemical additives in water (which vary from area to area) are "safe" and meant to make the water "safer" than if nothing were done with it. If you have an account with PubMed, you can even view the extensive studies on the subject. However, even if there was a risk from some of these chemicals, it could be a "calculated risk." In other words, the risk of NOT adding such things would be greater to a much larger number of people.

When my little sister was five years old, she contracted a parasite from tap water that was not effectively treated. She had to be flown to a hospital to determine the cause of her weakened state. Once identified, she was given medication to fight the parasite...and then it took a little time to recover. The doctors said that this particular parasite is found in lakes or rivers...but is usually spread to humans by drinking untreated or improperly treated water. Sure enough, an investigation found that the treatment at the time of our local water supply did not meet federal health standards. After that experience, my parents took measures (by purchasing equipment) to make sure our water was safe.

That was an interesting piece on Biblical wine, Chris.

If it only contained 2-3% of alcohol, what kind of wine did people get drunk on. For instance, Noah and Lot.

Seems to me they knew how to make pretty strong drink in Noah's day.

This is what I was saying:

Most importantly, wine in "Biblical" times was typically mixed. It was a staple drink of a time where water and fresh fruit juice was as scarce as a river, stream or working well. It was not used simply as a means to get drunk. Modern wine has an alcohol content of approximately 9-11%. Typical mixed wine consumed daily during Biblical times had an alcohol content of about 2-3%.

I was highlighting the fact that wine like this was a staple drink during Biblical times. Water and fresh juice weren't readily available. Refrigeration wasn't available for juice, so it naturally fermented on its own sugars. It was boiled (with yeast) as a method to safely preserve it for longer periods of time. So, many people drank various types of fruit wines. These wines were typically MIXED...so the alcohol content (which was already lower than what we have now) was quite diminished. As a result, it would be difficult to get drunk on such diluted wine...except by drinking extremely large quantities of it.

However, non-mixed wines were also available. These had a higher alcohol content and could more easily lead to drunkenness. Those who sought to get drunk could do so by drinking non-mixed wine.

I hope this clarifies what I was saying.

Jesus turned water into wine. Period. Thats what the text says. The only reason we debate it is because we are looking at this from a 21st century perspective and a culture that was heavily influenced by the prohibition movement of an earlier century.

The Bible does not condemn the consumption of wine. It condemns drunkeness. It warns against "strong drink" (whiskey, vodka, etc).

Like a moth to a fire I had to read this post. :-)

Krispy, well said and I would agree with your summary 100%.

It's amazing to me how many people stumble over the fact that Jesus created an alcoholic beverage. I guess it just doesn't fit folks view of who Jesus was, it definitely goes against the religious grain but the text is clear.

Additionally, I don't agree with the 'cultural watered down' line of thinking either, it's ridiculous. Is is so hard to believe that Jesus drank wine without being drunk?
Could not the Creator of the universe do this?

Personally, I don't judge a brother that drinks wine, and I don't judge a brother who doesn't.

One thing is clear, I don't want to make a god in my own image as the people did while Moses was on the mountain.

The bible has much to say about the abuse of wine, let's not go there.

I don't agree with the 'in American culture you shouldn't drink wine' line of thinking either. Jesus went out of his way to destroy religious arguments. It seems he purposely healed people on the sabbath, defended the disciples who ate grain on the sabbath and so forth.

Who got offended when He did these things? The Pharisees. He did not change His actions to 'not offend' these Pharisees, in fact He did the opposite. He is so wonderful.

Regarding 'strong drink':

If I gave you a drink of wine (beer, whatever) your response would likely be, "that's refreshing".

If I gave you a shot of rum, your response would likely be "WOW that's strong!!"

Now, what is strong drink?

It's really that simple (at least that's the light that I got on it). The bible was written by fishermen for fishermen (and women).

"Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise." I take that for what it says, not for what it could mean..."Well, it means deceived into drunkenness." Fine, but you're reading into it by saying that. It's a lot simpler when you take God for what He said.

I believe it would be beneficial to study the history of liquor, etc. And to study what the majority of faithful Christians for the last two thousand years believed about it. It is only the last few "progressive" generations of Christians that have turned it around 180 degrees from what it obviously was. Their explanation can sound good, but in the end it just doesn't glorify God and that should tell you something right there.

Fine, but I don't look to Martin Luther for the truth on this matter. "Great theologian"....whatever. It really doesn't make it any more glorious to me.

I say this with humility that far more Christians are ignorant of the Bible than of Church history. Ok, forget the history part (even though there are some valid points still there). Stick with the Book and answer what it says.

Just taking an honest look at the record in the Bible of fermented drink, it is appalling how Christians would try to endorce alcohol as righteous even in moderation!

You might be interested in http://www.amazingfacts.org/resources/download/PBLib/BK-CA.pdf

Brothers and sisters, I have been on this forum for over a year or so now, and I can honestly say that a significant percentage of the conversations that "can" become an impasse with no seeming resolution would be completely eradicated if each person took a long, hard, and honest look with a prayerful heart at Romans chapter 14. Each man must discern whether he is a weak or a spiritual brother. And we must recognize that Romans 14 is applicable to a vast arena of life. There are hundreds of topics that will never find any resolution apart from what Krispy said...each man must be convinced in his own mind. What that essentially means is, if you do anything that sears your own conscience, you are not acting in faith. The ultimate call is to trust that God is the Lord of our brothers and sisters. We must trust His capacity to preserve His children. Not our own capacity to do so. For we have no capacity for preservation, but our human capacity is more prone to the introduction of religion and "taste not touch not." God never told Adam and Eve not to "touch" the tree. Just not to eat of it.

Areadymind,

I understand what you're saying, but I would like to reword it as follows.

We need to have GRACE towards others whose view on a matter is not the same as ours. And yet at the same time, it is still our duty to stand for and proclaim the truth that God has given us (through his word). The Bible says "grace AND truth came by Jesus Christ."

"That will never find any resolution..."??? I beg to differ. I believe the answer to everything is within the pages of that Holy Book and if you study long enough, you'll find it. Of course, I'm not saying all Christian in a church agree on every little thing, but they should on the important things.

Read my sig. lines maybe this will help some folks. savedtoserve, yes I agree the answers are all there, but our understanding of them is not. Again read my sig. lines, hope this helps with this discussion.

Sometimes scripture provides us with disclosure on a subject that is provided by those to whom we would be in opposition . For instance when we speak to Christ's declaration of divinity, they may argue (and sometimes vehemently) against what we present, as they see what is presented as a biased presentation on our part. However credence can be found from the most unusual sources. The religious leaders, made up of many factions in Christ day, where of one accord on this and did not miss the fact that Jesus Claimed to be God. Even though they did not believe His deity, they most certainly understood His claim to it. Their understanding of what He said does not prove His deity, but it does make clear His claim to it.

Just as we hear the massive crowd at Pentecost trying to understand the miracle of declaration being declared by those upon whom the H.S alighted. Drunk they were not, for they had not partaken of NEW WINE being still an early hour of the morning. So the crowd (which should be familiar with the difference of grape juice and wine does give us enlightenment as to the meaning of new wine when viewed in this context.

The question I would think we should be asking ourselves is how the abstention of things ties in with the example given in scripture of the new convert conscience being compromised.

Whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, in everything give glory to God
1st Cor 10:31

YOU CANNOT DRINK THE CUP OF THE LORD AND DEMONS
1st Cor 10:21

In this debate of wine and conscience we must understand that these two verse are being tied together. So we must address whether or not it is right to do so.

Is there anything in this that speaks to liberty, if wine is made to fall under the category of the demon cup? So the question is: Is this what scripture is speaking to when it comes to the subject of wine and liberty? Given the above proclamation which is more an ultimatum, we should ask ourselves if this is what scripture is really speaking to? If wine is the cup spoken of that will cause one to look differently upon the God of the new converts salvation as well as the demons they were delivered from, then there is no longer a question of this subject of wine ever being a question of liberty. On the other hand, if this is not what scripture speaks to, then we must examine the dangers that come by lending support to false concepts of righteousness.

So should we examine the dangers (and they are serious dangers) of validating acts done by Christians for the sake of a righteousness not born in Christ? It is a plague that is epidemic where I live and it is so powerful that it would have virtually anyone who would associate themselves with Christ, abstaining from anything and any action that has been codified by local tradition ie the unspoken and unwritten laws that individuals adhere to. Evidenced by the fact that is is not the young in Christ offended but the Elders first and all age groups that would fall below them in descending order. It is not an offense that the indwelling originates but rather an offense that comes by the disenchantment of men that results in false conviction.

It is natural for men to do what is right in their own eyes and they will do many things that they will account to themselves as making them more acceptable to God. Even the children of the world hold up similar acts that they feel will qualify them as good and use it to account their worth in Gods eyes. These things they do in ignorance but we, knowing that these things come naturally to the fallen nature, should be aware not to be seduced by its powerful attraction to the flesh.

Hi savedtoserve:

I made this point in an earlier thread, here's what Paul told Timothy in 1 Timothy 3:

Here is a trustworthy saying: Whoever aspires to be an overseer desires a noble task. 2 Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him, and he must do so in a manner worthy of full[a] respect. 5 (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?) 6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. 7 He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil’s trap.

8 In the same way, deacons[b] are to be worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain. 9 They must keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience. 10 They must first be tested; and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons.

Either way I don't judge you for what you do or do not do (please hear my heart in this).

I do hear you, learjet. But you're totally disregarding the distinction of new wine and old wine, which is clearly distinguished in Scripture.

Here are some facts and then some scriptures for ya'll.

Tests show that after drinking three bottles of beer, there is an average of 13 percent net memory loss. After taking only small quantities of alcohol, trained typists were tested and their errors increased 40 percent. Only one ounce of alcohol increases the time required to make a decision by nearly 10 percent; hinders muscular reaction by 17 percent; increases errors due to lack of attention by 35 percent.

And this is something that the King of Kings would do???

"Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are."
- 1 Corinthians 3:16-17

Did anyone read this link? http://www.amazingfacts.org/resources/download/PBLib/BK-CA.pdf

savedtoserve

Oh good! I'm glad to hear this! Can you please settle the Calvinsim vs Arminianism debate for us once and for all??

Do you really believe that you cannot figure out which, Calvanism or Arminianism, is correct through Scripture? By the way, there is a middle ground. :) I'm not trying to start a new topic here, I'm just wondering if that's what you were trying to say through your example. In other words, are you trying to say the Bible doesn't have the answer to all matters of faith, practice, and principle?

But you're totally disregarding the distinction of new wine and old wine, which is clearly distinguished in Scripture.

Actually, I'm not confused regarding old wine and new wine the word means the same thing in Hebrew as it does in Greek: fermented grape juice. It's right there in Strongs (and Vines) have a look for yourself. I don't have to rely on forensic anthropologists and their opinions regarding 'diluted wine' or 'grape juice' to justify the Lords ways, the Word alone is clear.

If it is grape juice like you say then why did Paul specify how much or how little a person in a position of authority should consume? Who care how much grape juice a person drinks? It doesn't make sense any other way.

They called Jesus a 'winebibber and a sinner', do you think that they called Him this for drinking grape juice?

By all means brother don't drink wine, it's obvious that you would be violating your conscience but don't judge others who do as being less spiritual than yourself.

As I've read through this thread I have seen a lot of helpful and interesting responses. And to those who say these threads are a waste of time, I remind you that the majority of the New Testament is dealing with these types of issues. As the Gospel was spread to different non-jewish cultures questions like.. what can we eat? Drink? How long should our hair be? What sexual practices can we partake of? always came up. The apostles spent a lot of time dealing with cultural issues. So these kinds of threads are good, becauses they cause to search the scriptures to see if our opinions are really biblical.

Personally, I believe that throughout scripture and church history the drinking of wine or beer was a normal practice, but over indulgence in both drink and food has always been condemned. "For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost." (Romans 15:17)

Edit: I recommend listening to John Piper answer the question, "Can drinking alcohol be OK?" on youtube.

It doesn't make sense any other way...They called Jesus a 'winebibber and a sinner', do you think that they called Him this for drinking grape juice?

So if you're accused of being a drunkard, then we should deduce that that you've even drank alcohol before? NO! Just because He was accused of being a "winebibber" doesn't mean He drank liquor at all.

C'mon... let's stop with this and stick to scripture.

But you need to face the physical effect it causes as well as the Biblical evidence, while the latter is, of course, more important. Having said that, you never answered the verses on this topic except for reading into them to fit your views. Why not just take God for what He said?

Different folks have told me that I ought not to drink it because my conscience is obviously against it. Well, of course! I'm not forcing anyone else to believe likewise. All I'm doing is challenging your position.

don't judge others who do as being less spiritual than yourself.

savedtoserve

Funny how we go on and on about alcohol. Where is the thread on over eating? People say "your body is a temple, so dont drink or smoke" ... but then never mention eating fatty fried food, etc.

Watch it Krispy, you're getting close to my sacred cows there :-)

Well, I've summed up my beliefs on the issue and don't think that I can add anymore to the thread. Additionally, I don't want to get into an endless debate like Titus is warned about.

Thank you for the discussion!

Peace to all of you!

who cares about such questions? Let me list some categories of people interested in such questions:

1) Pharisees
2) Poeple with a religious spirit
3) Scribes
4) ecclesiastical bloodhounds
5) Pharisees
6) Pharisees
7) Pharisees
8) Pharisees
9) or the curious brother

Funny how the hit dog always yelps. XD

The rest of the oft partially quoted verse is Luke 7:33-34

33 For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine, and you say, ‘He has a demon.’ 34 THE SON OF MAN CAME EATING AND DRINKING, and you say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.’
(caps mine)

Fairly obvious what Jesus was drinking isn't it?

Jesus Himself said, "The Son of Man came eating and drinking". In the context of the scripture no other conclusion can be reached than that Jesus stated with His own mouth he drank alcoholic wine at times.

It simply means what it actually says

In this discussion of drinking alcoholic beverages and the suppose freedom to do so, I am left wondering how many proponents have ever surrendered a freedom or liberty for the sake of a weak brother or sister?

I can tell you from experience the rewards are rich...ah,the blessing of having earned their trust rivals anything far beyond what I would have gained by insisting on the flaunting of my freedom in their presence. I will not say what the issue is - that is irrelevant, but I considered their trust of paramount importance over my liberty to ...

ginnyrose

The argument isn't about whether or not He drank wine, it is about whether or not he drank old or new wine, and is new wine grapejuice and old wine liquor.

Creation7-

Again, the verse actually means what it says...regardless of whether is fits into anyones theological box or not.

The wine Jesus said he drank was the wine that got you labeled as a drunkard if you drank too much. The text states this. It is also purposefully drawn as a contrast to the strict dietary laws followed by the sects that John was affiliated with. John DID NOT drink alcohol and was condemned. Jesus DID drink alcohol and was condemned. Not much different today, eh?

The text means what it says. Jesus drank wine. Wine that others would call you a drunk for drinking to much of. That means it had alcohol content.

Rather than attempting to make texts fit into our theology may we be willing to let our theology be radically moved and changed to actually fit into the framework of scripture. If one makes the argument of total abstinence then it could be made from the idea of not offending the brother with a weak conscience.

What "not offending the brother of weaker conscience" means in practice is this- If I am with you then I would never drink alcoholic wine as you have a weaker conscience in this area and it would be wrong of me to offend it. That is not a slight.. I am sure we all have areas of conscience weakness... however, for this topic I would not drink the wine due to your weak conscience. However, if I am not with you then I am not bound by your weak conscience and free to do as my conscience dictates under the scripture and my relationship to Jesus, The Father, and The Holy Spirit.

The arguement put forth on this thread justifying the recreational use of alcohol are the same ones put forth to us by two of our boys.

At the time this happened I figured when they matured they would see the issue differently. But this did not happen. The bodies got older but the conscience did not mature. So what did happen? They drink - now.

Now they are people who are so self-centered. They were back then and still are, the one more so then the other.

My point? Read again the above because I do not believe this to be unusual - "my rights, I want what I want and you ain't gonna tell me I can't!"

It was suggested that we keep this conversation biblical, so I hope to add some thoughts to consider.

First, I wish to show that there are two types of potentially intoxicating drinks mentioned in the NT, 'wine' and 'strong drink'.

For he (John Baptist) shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother’s womb. (Luke 1:15)

John was a Nazarite from birth. He was filled with the Spirit from his mother's womb. What need he of intoxicating drink? It would not be said of him as the prophets of Isaiah's time,

But they also have erred through wine, and through strong drink are out of the way; the priest and the prophet have erred through strong drink, they are swallowed up of wine, they are out of the way through strong drink; they err in vision, they stumble in judgment. (Isaiah 28:7)

John gave no place to the Devil. 'I can handle it' was not in John's thinking. He gave space to the enemy no, not for an hour. He did not gaze upon the wine when it was red in the glass, moving aright just waiting to bite like a serpent, And sting like a viper. (Proverbs 23:31, 32) John did not put the serpent or viper into his mouth, but rather heeded the advice of Solomon. View red wine as a viper and serpent ready to destroy you. No man never having taken the first drink ever became a alcoholic. Dost thou hast liberty to sleep among vipers? Yea, but do it at thine own peril. This is our example of the manner of life of a goodly prophet.

Do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations: (Leviticus 10:9)

If so be that the man survive the bite of the serpent and the sting of the viper, will he survive God? He taught Israel the reality of dealing with a holy God. The priests were not to consume such drinks while near the presence of God. It is believed that this rule was implemented because Nadab and Abihu were drunk when they offered strange fire, but this is not certain. If it is true the story is even more profound as the drinking of wine and strong drink for a believer imperils their ability to rightly serve God. Again, Do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations. If perchance a believer may implore the Lord depart his body, that is to say, his temple for the sake of drink we may well question which he intended to serve. Did God write these things for Aaron and his sons only or not all together for our sakes? Aaron and his sons were moving in the figures of the truth, but we have experienced the reality. This is the way of a goodly priest. (see also 1 Corinthians 11:21-30)

Was Jesus a glutton and drunkard?

God forbid. The Son of Man has come reating and drinking, and you say, ‘Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ (Luke 7:33, 34) This is contrasted with their other comment about John, For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine; and ye say, He hath a devil. What did they say?

1. Jesus was a drunkard and glutton
2. John was demon possessed

They were wrong on all accounts including the way in which they tried to suggest He was a 'friend of tax collectors and sinners!'. He was not a 'friend' in the sense that he was signing-off on their sin. He reached out to them not partaking of their error in any way, shape, or form. They blasphemed Jesus, John and the Holy Ghost all in one motion. How? John had not a devil, but was filled with the Spirit.

Moreover, in the NT there is no justification for drinking any drink that could be labeled 'strong-drink'. These are non-wines (shekar) meant for the sole purpose of causing intoxication. Arguably they may have been used for medicinal purposes, but certainly not to help a stomach as with young Timothy. BTW, to think Paul would suggest Timothy look upon the red wine to help his stomach, as if the wine in question is the same as the wine in Proverbs is nonsense.

...keep thyself pure. (1 Tim. 5:22b) Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach’s sake and thine often infirmities. (v. 23)

Why would Paul suggest Timothy partake of something that could lead to his destruction prefacing the comment with 'keep thyself pure'? He uses the words οἴνῳ ὀλίγῳ (few wine or little wine). It is the same word used here, Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few (ὀλίγος) there be that find it. In other words Paul was saying, "Keep thyself pure, take just a little wine for your stomach, etc." It was not a green light for so-called recreational drinking whatsoever. Little means little means little means little. Not to catch a buzz or anything else.

Why the desire?

Why would a believer 'want' to drink something that knowingly had alcohol in it when it was not necessary? When you can walk into a store and find more types of non-alcoholic drinks than has ever been running the gamut of every flavor, etc. imaginable. Why desire booze? It does not take a rocket engineer to figure it out.

Luke 12:45 But and if that servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken;

There comes a temptation to flirt with sin that at the last will utterly destroy. Why would anyone want to flirt with a viper or a serpent? It is folly to suggest that I can hold my liquor better than my brother or sister, therefore drinking intoxicating drink is not sin to me. I have personally seen men criticize drunks for drinking only to be seduced by a few drinks and they are alcoholic today. This is not academic for me. I have had a front row seat to the suffering men have caused their families because they were so good at holding their liquor. Booze in not my friend, it is mine enemy. I have been at the bedsides of men and even ministered to women as their bellies bloated full of fluid until they looked 12 months pregnant (9+3). I have seen where they had to be 'tapped' to release the gallons and gallons of water. At the last the scripture is true. It does sting like a viper. I have seen men vomit up ice chips in the throes of death trying to quench their thirst after years of quenching it with a 'cold one'. It doesn't get any better than this! so the commercial says. I beg to differ. I have a PHD in hard knox as a result of alcoholism as do many of us. We don't need convinced it is evil from the word go. We know it is.

Why would anyone want to flirt with sin and be full of the Holy Spirit? Eph. 5:18 And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit; Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord. This is the key for quenching the thirst for drink.

Robert wrote:
"Why would anyone want to flirt with sin and be full of the Holy Spirit? Eph. 5:18 And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit; Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord. This is the key for quenching the thirst for drink."

Well said. This principle has far-reaching applications.

when the bible says
that decons should not be givern to much wine

what does that mean

surely it doesnt mean deacons should not be givern to grape juce
paull must be talking about wine that has some sort of punch ,even it it is a litle jab

i dont think the issue is geting drunk
we all know we are comanded not to get drunk
and drunkens will not inherit the kindom

surely we dont have anyone here that would say they have the liberty to get drunk

i sopose a bibical defintion on the word drunk ,would help to understand

well im off to bed ,,after by 2 unfermented pears

no wine

hi krispy,many years ago i met one of the greatest winesses i have ever known who was very wealthy and not founded in any religeous upbringing. when he got saved he got sho enuff saved and for a while would witness with a scotch in one hand and a bible in the other. he led many business guys to the Lord and after a while there was no drink and after another while he was a force in changing the lives of many men and women. he died in one of his own helicopters. the church was full of people whose lives were touched by jim o.including mine.jimp

what does that mean

surely it doesnt mean deacons should not be givern to grape juce
paull must be talking about wine that has some sort of punch ,even it it is a litle jab

This is in line with what Paul told Timothy when he said, '...keep thyself pure, (1 Tim. 5:22b) Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach’s sake and thine often infirmities. (v. 23)' Little means 'little' or 'few' as in the prohibition of 'much wine' in Titus and Timothy. Notice also that our word here is 'wine' (yayin) and not 'strong drink' (shakar heb/sikara gk) which is a term used only in Luke. There is no place whatsoever for the drinking of 'strong drink' in the NT. I'm prepared to stand corrected though. This would mean that any liberty to drink is for wine (yayin heb/oinos gk) alone in low quantities and NOT for drinks designed to cause intoxication. In other words to suggest that a Christian may 'take a little wine' is not the same thing at all as saying 'have a beer' or a 'mixed drink'. again, if we know drunkenness is prohibited why take a drink for the intent purpose of causing a prohibited state?

I have to agree with bro. Robert and Krispy. We have so many drinks (Soda, juice, kool aid, etc..) that it really isn't necessary to drink anything alcoholic, whereas earlier believers didn't have such options. Though we cannot stand behind a pulpit and condemn drinking as a sin. We can warn of the many dangers involved!

I think a better question than "is it ok for a Christian to drink?" would be "CAN it be ok for a Christian to drink?". Which obviously depends on the circumstances. If we have a bad headache we may can just pop an aspirin, but what about the poor brother in the third world whose only option to take the edge off is an old bottle of fermented drink? Can we condemn him? I think not.

Do I believe Jesus drank fermented wine? Yes. Do I think its necessary for us, especially in America? Nope. But I do not believe we can condemn the brother who does, perhaps a loving conversation discussing the dangers with him would change his mind better than standing on a soap box telling him to "turn or burn".

I guess I will semi-hijack this thread for all those that think a little wine is really a big sin.
In the Bible Jacob was dishonest, Peter had a temper, David committed adultery, Noah got drunk, Jonah ran from God, Paul was a murderer, Gideon was insecure, Miriam was a gossiper, Martha was a worrier, Thomas was a doubter, Sarah was impatient, Elijah was moody, Moses stuttered, Zaccheus was short, Abraham was old, and Lazarus was dead. Now what's your excuse? Get off you backside and on your knees and thank God for who you are and what you have, cause brethern aint nobody perfect!

Hi Brother Robert,

Good points. Today's society is very different than a society where people drank water from rivers, streams and wells...and where "refrigeration" was non-existent outside of a few deep caves.

Wine was not designed to simply get people drunk. It was used as a preservative in the age before refrigeration...and for health purposes. It was not synthetically prepared in order to produce a high alcohol content (like most modern drinks).

As for whether "wine" contained alcohol: Timothy was instructed about requirements for overseers and deacons. Deacons were instructed to refrain from being "given to much wine." If there was no alcohol content in such wine, then why offer such a guideline? Why would you be instructed to avoid too much of it?

The Biblical principle focuses on avoiding drunkenness. "Strong drink" as understood today is manufactured (at least partially) because of the alcohol content. Natural red wine has some proven health benefits, but too much of it can result in drunkenness. Since the amount needed to achieve "drunkenness" varies from person-to-person and size-to-size, then it is a risky endeavor to drink at all.

I don't drink wine. I can obtain most of the same health benefits by drinking regular pomegranate juice. Fresh water is readily available today in a way that was almost unthinkable in Biblical times. So, I just don't see a need to ever drink it. That said: I do believe that wine in the Bible had some alcohol in it...and I won't judge anyone who drinks wine. However, the Scriptural principle against drunkenness was the same then as it is now.

KrispyKrittr......Zaccheus was short

So you're saying being short is a fault??
Phew... glad I am 6 feet!
Krispy

Hey Abraham was old, and I am old, I thought being old was a fault, O sorry! I must have heard that during all the Social Security debates in Washington.

However, the Scriptural principle against drunkenness was the same then as it is now.

I think this is quite true. To try to bring this all into balance I see wine in some cases in the NT as a necessity. But the necessity is always balanced with the dangers. I think of Galatians 5:21 and 1 Cor 6:10 I think we have the solution in Romans 13:14:

But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to fulfill its lusts.

I know it is not popular, but it seems pretty straightforward.

This topic is so shallow. So what if Jesus turned water into alcoholic wine. If drinking wine is a sin the majority of Christians in Europe are doomed to hell. It's not what goes into the body, it's what comes out.

"And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit" (Eph 5:18) leads me to believe that even being a little tipsy is not a sin.

And we in the West feel that we have such a handle on the Bible and what is and isn't "sin." We're so busy worrying about the petty issues within our own 4 walls we neglect to go out and evangelize the world. God help us!

Would you stand in the public square and proclaim the glorious gospel of Christ with a Bible in one hand... and a Bud Lite in the other?

But if you think there's nothing wrong with drinking a Bud Lite, why would you suddenly feel guilty doing it when proclaiming the Gospel?

We're so busy worrying about the petty issues within our own 4 walls we neglect to go out and evangelize the world. God help us!

The subject is important because we live in a time where Christian standards are falling through the floor. How can we listen to the sermons of the men on this site and not embrace the lifestyle most of them chose? They lived lives of holiness and separation. I for one believe compromise is a primary reason why we are seeing the spiritual and moral deterioration in the West. We are fast losing our distinction between Christians and those in the world. This is just one area of many that I believe need to be addressed.

As for beyond the four walls ministry I speak as a fool to say I have been in outreach ministry weekly for some 17 years. So it does not have to be one or the other. We can hold up the standard and preach at the same time.

Okay, I see what you're saying. But what I mean is, why could you not do both at the same time if it's not wrong to drink in the first place?

"An accuser of the brethren?" Now that's funny! Hope ya don't break a leg stepping down off that high-horse! ;)

Evidently Paul did not see it totally this way.

When addressing the Corinthian Church, which Paul specifically said had problems with public drunkenness in church services....but the actual issue was they were factious, immature, and not waling in love.

Paul admonished them to not be using the Eucharist/Lords Supper as an occasion to drunkenness. He said if they wished to drink in this way, and to that level, to do so at home. Just the same way he also warns against gluttony and to eat at home.

1 Cor 11:18-22 " In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval. So then, when you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat, for when you are eating, some of you go ahead with your own private suppers. As a result, one person remains hungry and another gets drunk. Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God by humiliating those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? Certainly not in this matter!"

Clearly it was not the eating or drinking that was the problem... it was their lack of humility toward the other believers.

However, Paul never scolded them for using the wine in the Eucharist/Lords Supper at all. He was obviously fine with it. It was the drunkenness, gluttony and selfishness exhibited that he rebuked. We also know from the rest of the Corinthian letter that sexual sin was being permitted at Corinth.

This should also lay to rest the foolishness that they were using "grape juice". Paul himself states that the "grape juice" they were using in communion was sufficient to "get them drunk" It was clearly alcoholic. Paul did not tell them to quit using it. He simply put guidelines on its use.

If drinking the wine at all was an issue with Paul then he would certainly have told them to stop it... but he did not. He told them to drink at home ,eat at home, not be drunken, don't be gluttonous, and quit being factious. The fact that Paul does not stop the use of wine here in the most obvious New Testament example really says it all. However, he also clearly dictates that if any actions cause a brother to stumble then to refrain in their presence because of their weak conscience.

Isn't it clear by now?

Eating food is not wrong. However, overeating and gluttony are a sin.
Drinking wine is not wrong. However, overdrinking and drunkenness are a sin.
Sexual realations in marriage are not wrong. However, sexual relations outside the boundaries of marriage are wrong and a sin.

Eating food, drinking wine, and sex are all the same. When kept within God's boundaries they are pleasures He made to be enjoyed. However, when we cross those boundaries we enter into adultery, gluttony, and drunkeness.

The argument has been made on this thread to totally avoid wine as "why play with fire. You might become an alcoholic". To then to be consistent and non hypocrital in that thought a person would then have to abstain from food for they might become a glutton... or abstain from sex with their wife/husband as they might some day become an adulterer. That is non sense. Keep things within the boundaries God established for food, wine, and sexual relations and they will then be a blessing from God.. not something to walk in fear of. Something to be respectful of His outlines on and walk within His standards on... but not paralyzed by fear on.

I "accused" no one! After you get the cast off your leg, you might want to take a look at that beam in your eye. ;)

I had no idea that this was a private club. Beginning to remind me of several of the "churches" we've visited.

No thanks! The kind of "love" I sense here is the kind I can do without. Y'all have fun. I think I'll go grab a glass of wine.

Okay, please explain your line of reasoning to me.

It isnt a sin to drink a beer or a glass of wine.

But why do it when it obscures the gospel?

In this case it does cause people to stumble, so we're commanded to not do it if it causes one to stumble.

Paul said "Be ye followers of me even as I am of Christ." But now we shouldn't follow Christ (or Paul) in this area "just because"???

I believe Christ and His word transcend cultures in all matters of righteousness.

EDIT - The Bible says the scriptures are of NO PRIVATE INTERPRETATION.

savedtoserve

Bill wrote:

"Zaccheus was short"

Bill, I am short, less the five feet tall. I never knew this was a sin - I always thought it was because of the genes I inherited from my grandmother. How can God save me from a malady over which I have no control?

ginnyrose

by ginnyrose
Bill wrote:

"Zaccheus was short"

Bill, I am short, less the five feet tall. I never knew this was a sin - I always thought it was because of the genes I inherited from my grandmother. How can God save me from a malady over which I have no control?

ginnyrose

It was all in fun, at the hope of having this thread take the next exit up the road onto the new freeway, hope this helps.

PS... Is being funny a sin? if so please forgive me, I just don't want any dried up bones. Lol

"A happy heart is good medicine and a cheerful mind works healing, but a broken spirit dries up the bones"
(Proverbs 17:22, AMP Ver.).

Bill, I love humor as all my friends know, but ah reckon I missed it...

I do get annoyed when I encounter a tall person who will refuse to look at ya when you talk to them - they just look over your head as though you are not worthy of any attention.
This does bum me out. Maybe you can give me a funny suggestion on how to handle it the next time it happens?

ginnyrose

PS: Now this IS a rabbit trail!

Can we discontinue the off-topic posts? That's what emailing is for.

Did anyone read this link? http://www.amazingfacts.org/resources/download/PBLib/BK-CA.pdf

"Use the silver to buy whatever you like: cattle, sheep, wine or other fermented drink, or anything you wish. Then you and your household shalleat there in the presence of the Lord your God and rejoice."

This is not some opinion stated by man, but God's own words on the subject. "BEFORE THE LORD" from His own mouth. The Lord, who does not change, instructed His own people to drink wine or fermented drink BEFORE THE LORD and REJOICE.

The Lord would never have encouraged anyone to "sin" before Him, thus He clearly did not, and does not consider drinking wine, or fermented drink a sin.

If the Lord Himself instructed His people in this way, why do those who claim to speak for Him deny His people the very liberty He Himself gave them to rejoice before Him?

Those who would contradict what the Lord Himself instructed speak from an "appearance" of wisdom only. But touch not, taste not and handle not - is not spiritual life or righteousness - just commandments of men completely powerless to restrain the sinful indulgence of the flesh.

There is a better way - the fruit of the Spirit- SELF CONTROL. DRINK NOT - is only one more man made law that is a reaction against the abuse of what the Lord Himself made to be enjoyed BEFORE HIM.

ironfloater

Very good Ironfloater,

Now is this topic done? ;)I really am uncertain on how anyone can refute that scriture? but oh the religious minded and set in their ways surely will figure something out.(Please note I once was of those religious minded but the Lord showed me a better way)

This gets on another topic which I don't plan to explore here. But what version are you using? Yes, I'm "one of those" who cares about which version. :)

If you let me know the reference, I can tell you what my Bible says.

Numbers 28:7 "Its drink offering shall be a fourth of a hin for each lamb; in the Holy Place you shall pour out a fermented drink offering to the Lord." (Amp)

Is God a boozer to?

Deuteronomy 14:26

I believe that comes out of the NIV but if you are KJV Only kind of guy

"26And thou shalt bestow that money for whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatsoever thy soul desireth: and thou shalt eat there before the LORD thy God, and thou shalt rejoice, thou, and thine household,"

Or perhaps a NAS?

"26 You may spend the money for whatever your [a]heart desires: for oxen, or sheep, or wine, or strong drink, or whatever your [b]heart [c]desires; and (A)there you shall eat in the presence of the LORD your God and rejoice, you and your household."

No? How about the Amplified my personal favorite ;)

"26And you may spend that money for whatever your appetite craves, for oxen, or sheep, or new wine or strong[er] drink, or whatever you desire; and you shall eat there before the Lord your God and you shall rejoice, you and your household."

*edited added answering a question I forgot to answer*

by savedtoserve....Can we discontinue the off-topic posts? That's what emailing is for.

Off topic? let me guess, is that as you see it? I personally don't see any posts that are completely off topic here. Also how would one of us email without email address? if we asked for an email address to email someone, would that be off topic?

King James Bible Deuteronomy 14:26
And thou shalt bestow that money for whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatsoever thy soul desireth: and thou shalt eat there before the LORD thy God, and thou shalt rejoice, thou, and thine household.

______________________________________________________________
PS: Martin Luther eventually married a young former Nun, and had several children while living in his own, protected home. He was given a large supply of many kegs of beer, and would entertain and fellowship visitors, the rest of his life, sharing a tankard or two with them. [Probably singing too...."A mighty fortress is our God!"...to the tune of the famous beer hall melody....]
_____________________________________________________________

And Martin Luther also instigated the persecution of those who disagreed with him theologically...I do not consider him a saint whom I want to use as a role model for ANYTHING.

EDIT: While many in Christdom revere him for his role in breaking free from the tyranny of the Catholic church, we have no promise he made it to heaven...his attitude towards the Anabaptists was such that the Anabaptists did not allow their people to attend the reformed churches.

Many put forth the argument that since the possibility exists of stumbling one weak in the faith - total abstinence should become the rule of practice among all believers.

This clearly goes beyond what Paul the apostle intended, for had he himself reached that same conclusion his instructions to Timothy would have indicated so.

If Paul had reached the same conclusion that some put forth that all believers should abstain for the sake of not wounding the conscience of those weak in faith - then he would have clearly instructed all believers to abstain. Such instructions are nowhere to be found; instead, his own instructions to Timothy regarding overseers and deacons indicate that he chose not to command all believers to abstain. If Paul had been of the mind set that no believers should ever drink, he would have had no need to instruct Timothy or Titus in the way he did.

Those who advocate that every believer should abstain from alcohol because of the weak conscience of another have turned the true act of loving deferrment into a law of abstenence. Paul himself did not even do this, for had he done so he would have simply commanded all the churches to abstain from all alcohol because of the potentil of causing another to stumble.

I realize that those who advocate this position think they are acting in the best interest of others, and especially in the name of the Lord. However, their conclusion becomes a law trumping the true liberty of the individual believer's conscience. In doing so, they raise the question of conscience for everyone rather than doing as Paul instructed. Paul said that a believer should not be the one to bring forth the matter of conscience, but in the event that another did, he should act discreetly and set aside his liberty for the sake of the other's conscience.

The fact that Paul called it liberty should not be taken lightly. When we seek to place upon others a law of abstinence, we are in effect denying the liberty that the apostle Paul himself acknowledged.

Denying the liberty of conscience to a believer is every bit the stumbling block that many express concern over a believers choice to drink. Placing before belivers man made ordinances that neither Jesus nor the apostles set forth is one of the great causes of stumbling in the church today. It may even be "a doctrine of demons which includes the prohibition of eating and drinking things that God meant to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.

Regardless of how sincere a concern might be, if the Lord Himself gives a liberty that men seek to curtail, have thy not added to His law? Is this not setting aside His commandments for commandments made by men? Was this not the modus operandi of those who crucified our Lord?

ironfloater

STEVE! I am shocked at your ignorance of Anabaptists!

I suggest you go here and listen to this series by Walter Beachy and get informed:

https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=35408&forum=40&4

(Walter Beachy is a church historian, specializing in Anabaptist History. He is honest and humble. I know him quite well. He has taught church history at the Bible Institute level; has traveled to Europe to check out some questions he had...)

To characterize Anabaptist theology, lifestyle with the Munsterites is gross ignorance. They existed for some time and fell into oblivion.

It is true that Martin Luther appeared to have served his time quite well, but from God's perspective, how do we know? The guy was instrumental in killing people! How would you respond if Bentley or Olsteen or Billy Graham or David Wilkerson would have advised their supporters to kill their distractors? Would you justify it on the basis of their doctrinal positions, or condemn it based on their doctrinal positions? or what good they may have done? God is not a respecter of persons. (Read James, a book Luther abhorred, I am told.)

In any case, Jesus never lifted the sword to kill his enemies and neither are we justified in doing so.

Amen and well said Ironfloater. It would also seem to me that one of Jesus teachings has completely been ignored in this thread and that is concerning the fact that it is not what goes into a man that makes him evil, it is what comes out of him. Rigid additions to the word of God concerning the abstinence as it defines "holiness" is a construct from the minds of men. God's holiness is not defined by his abstinence, as much as it is defined by his "otherness." It is a positive, unique attribute. Men attempt to define holiness by what they don't do. Jesus seemed to display the holiness of God by what he did. The two ideas are completely polar. All religions teach abstinence to one degree or another. Jesus, as the image of God, expressed what it meant to engage in the life of the Spirit, apart from the constructs of externalized fleshly reforms.

As Jesus set his face toward Jerusalem like flint, he never displayed even once, the tendency of man toward "taste not touch not." Rather, his holiness and bread was to DO the will of the Father. He engaged in the positive infiltration with the leaven of the kingdom of God into the kosmos. As a result he certainly never once sinned, but it was more because he set his face like flint towards something, than it was because he spent his life contemplating his navel trying to avoid temptations.

I know my pathetic words do a terrible job of conveying the idea, I am sure others could do better, but I hope that there is an inkling of the truth here.

This topic is important. There are many preachers who are inimical to the holiness of God because they get such a bang out of defining the holiness in their lives through abstinence, will-worship, and a feigned or false humility. I am sorry to say it, but these teachings are completely anti-Romans 14, and anti-Colossians. I find them to be completely repulsive, and they tend to invigorate a desire to rebel, they also keep the Mary Magdalen's from fellowship. I have become aware of that device, and just simply ignore men when they elevate their own standards of holiness above the clearly depicted commands of God through his timeless Son, and blessed Apostles.

Although you never did answer my post, Krispy.

Why does someone always feel the need to declare the end of a thread? :) Can't those interested continue and those disinterested discontinue?

One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. (Romans 14:5)

As this thread seems to be deteriorating I think it wise to close this conversation. Each have given their views and now I believe those who hear can prayerfully ask the Lord what they should do. I would ask that we not try to revisit this topic in the near term but continue to work towards edifying one another in love, even in the midst of our differences.

This thread is locked.

Kind Regards,

Robert