| Re: |
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
| 2011/8/21 20:56||Profile|
| Re: |
Don't worry about it. Jesus entertained all kinds of questions, even in His final days.
When questions were disingenuous and people were trying to test Him, He knew how to handle them.
| 2011/8/21 21:50|
| Re: |
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).
When people want to argue that Jesus made grape juice they are merely trying to shove their particular hangup into the text. A clear face value reading of the text makes it clear that Jesus changed water into WINE.
Now, having said that, I am not promoting the consumption of alcohol. Merely saying that the Bible does not forbid the moderate consumption of wine or "unstrong drink" anywhere. Not one single passage. YOU must seek out the Holy Spirit concerning whether you partake or not... and not judge someone else who may come to a different conclusion than you.
R.C. Sproul tackles this issue in his expository book on the Gospel of John. Excellent stuff. Well worth reading.
| 2011/8/22 8:16|
| Re: There is unfermented wine, please follow link|
"For wine to have alcohol, it MUST have leaven. Christs new wine representative of the Gospel, must be WITHOUT any mixture of leaven, which is representative of sin."
Not completely true. Paul used leaven as an example that sin can spread like leaven, leaven itself is not sin. We use the word "lust" to describe sexual sin, but the word lust is not wrong, it means an intense passion for something and that can be anything both good and bad.
How do I know that leaven is not a representation of sin? The parable of the leaven.
Matthew 13:33 Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.
The leaven is the Gospel of the Kingdom. The woman is the Church. The three measures of meal are the three classes of peoples to whom the gospel was to be broadcasted to, The Jews, The Samartians and the Gentiles.
The understanding of the meal came on me suddenly at this moment, some berean work will need to be consulted.
| 2011/8/22 10:37|
| Re: |
"Is drinking a glass of wine a sin?"
Let your mind decide. If there is a doubt, even a whisper, stay as far away from it as you possibly can. If nothing comes to mind and you look at as neither interesting or uninteresting, your probably one of those people that have it at a dinner and think nothing of it. If you are that way, you have less to be concerned about the "taste not, handle not" superstitions that pervade our surroundings.
*I am done posting for awhile. See you in a couple of weeks.
| 2011/8/22 10:58|
| Re: |
Very well said, Krispy.
| 2011/8/22 11:03|
| Re: |
Julius21....Very well said, Krispy.
I totally agree.
| 2011/8/22 11:14||Profile|
| Re: |
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.
| 2011/8/22 11:47||Profile|
| Re: |
"'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.
| 2011/8/22 11:51||Profile|
| Re: |
Martyr... we can not discuss scripture? There were Christians being martyred back in the first century and the Apostles got together with other church leaders in Jerusalem to discuss scripture. Specifically the topic of circumcism, which when you think about it it was the same underlying issue that this thread is dealing with: legalism.
No one here has forgotten about saints around the world who are spilling their blood. How do you know what people spoke with the Lord about in their prayer closets this morning? Are you certain that no one here gave money to organizations like Voice of the Martyrs this week? How do you know someone involved in this very thread isnt a missionary who is knee deep in persecution?
You do not know anyone on this website. We've talked quite a bit, my friend... but you dont know me.
What are you doing to help those who are spilling their blood? Why are you not over there spilling you blood with them? I see you are on this forum as much as anyone else. You participate in a wide variety of topics here... and then you post that on this thread?
While most "Christians" in America and western Europe are busy watching R-rated movies and listening to the worlds music and basically acting just like the heathen... a few true believers are here on this forum... discussing scripture. Seriously? You're going to call that into question?
Take it down a notch, brother. There is nothing wrong with discussing/debating scripture. Iron sharpens iron. This topic IS important. Why? Because ALL of God's precious Word is important!
| 2011/8/22 13:01|