Originally posted by AF Guy N Paradise:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by AF Guy N Paradise:
IMHO, I still don't believe it was alcoholic wine.
However, I am not dogmatic about it and realize I could be wrong. Look forward to seeing all of these answers in Heaven.
Fortunately, very many answers can be found this side of the grave through careful, prayerful, and objective study. That "wine" in the New Testament refers to an alcoholic beverage is an incontrovertible fact.
Wine is NOT a bad thing. It is the misuse of it that is sinful.
</font>[/QUOTE]There are very many intelligent people (much smarter than I) that have studied this issue amongst many others for years and yet still disagree with one another.
I try to be open and do have the ability to change my mind with proof from the scriptures. But as of now, I still have not been convinced of what you believe.
Hey, we can still treat one another with the utmost of respect, correct? </font>[/QUOTE]One can be smart and also ignorant, stubborn, and narrow-minded at the same time.
If you and your smarter acquaintances don't believe the wine mentioned in the New Testament was alcoholic then how do you explain the following?:
Matthew 11:18-19 (KJV): For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil. The Son of man came eating and DRINKING, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a WINEBIBBER, a friend of publicans and sinners.
I Timothy 3:8 (KJV): Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to MUCH WINE, not greedy of filthy lucre; (all emphasis mine)
1) Jesus says that He Himself drank alcoholic wine.
2) Deacons are not to be heavy drinkers. If the wine was not alcoholic there would be no need for this limitation.
I will always respect you as a person. But I can't respect any opinion that is so clearly contrary to scripture.