Baptist School Loses Third of Faculty

[freeatlast]

I mean no offense to anyone here, but it's amazing how people will jump on people for derailing a thread when it turns from the discussion of a school's rules and whether or not they are right, into whether or not drinking is ok. But to derail the thread and talk about China as a mission field in the same thread is ok?

As far as Christ drinking any alcoholinc beverage, I can't say with certainty that he did not turn the water into alcoholic wine, although it is my belief that he did not. However, I can say with a certainty that the wine drank at the Last Supper was not alcoholic, as it was a passover observance, and the Jews were not allowed to consume leaven at that time.

Back to the OP, the school's wording of "getting back to biblical roots" may not have meant that all their standards are found explicitly in the Bible, but rather that they are going back to the Biblical roots of having standards and practicing separation.

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[annsni]

However, I can say with a certainty that the wine drank at the Last Supper was not alcoholic, as it was a passover observance, and the Jews were not allowed to consume leaven at that time.

However, juice has leaven. Wine does not. The leaven is killed off in the process of fermentation and that is the sediment that is either strained off or left in the bottom of the bottle. So it HAD to be alcoholic wine.

 

[Jerome]

Even modern microfiltration methods leave some dead yeast particles. And such methods were not available in Bible times.

 

[Fred's Wife]

Ann,

Get a dictionary and learn what fermentation is. The yeast/leaven is not killed off during the process of fermentation. The yeast/leaven consumes the sugar and turns it into carbon dioxide and alcohol.

Here is a link from a site that sells home wine & beer making supplies...it explains very simply what wine fermentation is:

Wine Fermentation 101

What Is Really Going On

In very general terms a wine fermentation occurs when yeast consumes sugar and converts it into approximately half alcohol and half CO2 gas (carbonation) by weight.

For example, if you had five gallons of juice that had 10 pounds worth of sugar in it, and you fermented all of that sugar with yeast, you would end up with 5 gallons of juice that has roughly 5 pounds of alcohol in it.

The other five pounds of sugar would dissipate into the air as CO2 (carbonic) gas. So in fact the five gallon batch would become five pounds lighter than it was before the fermentation started.

Realize that the breakdown of alcohol verses gas would not be exactly half and half, but usually it would be very close. Some variances do occur depending on external factors such as the amount of available air, nutrients as well as the type of yeast used. But, rest assured that it would be within 46% one way or another.

It is important to note here that the 10 pounds of sugar that was in the five gallon batch may not have come all from sugar you added, but partially from the fruit as well. And in some cases, such as when making a wine from grapes, there may be no sugar required at all. In these cases enough sugar is already in the fruit itself to produce a wine with 11 or 12 percent alcohol.

Fermented fruit is rotten/dead fruit!

 

[annsni]

Ann,

Get a dictionary and learn what fermentation is. The yeast/leaven is not killed off during the process of fermentation. The yeast/leaven consumes the sugar and turns it into carbon dioxide and alcohol.

Here is a link from a site that sells home wine & beer making supplies...it explains very simply what wine fermentation is:


Fermented fruit is rotten/dead fruit!

No need to be fresh. After the yeast consumes the sugar, what does it do? Die. Use your dictionary to look up "lees".

 

[freeatlast]

I have to do some reaserch on this but to be fair to what Ann has said I found this;
http://dshortt.homestead.com/Wine_or_Grape_Juice_in_the_Lord_s_Supper_Simmons.htm
I think one of the misconceptions is that fermented wine of today is the same as the old wine or sour wine of the bible. It is not.

Any other study would be welcomed.

 

[Fred's Wife]

I mean no offense to anyone here, but it's amazing how people will jump on people for derailing a thread when it turns from the discussion of a school's rules and whether or not they are right, into whether or not drinking is ok. But to derail the thread and talk about China as a mission field in the same thread is ok?

As far as Christ drinking any alcoholinc beverage, I can't say with certainty that he did not turn the water into alcoholic wine, although it is my belief that he did not. However, I can say with a certainty that the wine drank at the Last Supper was not alcoholic, as it was a passover observance, and the Jews were not allowed to consume leaven at that time.

Back to the OP, the school's wording of "getting back to biblical roots" may not have meant that all their standards are found explicitly in the Bible, but rather that they are going back to the Biblical roots of having standards and practicing separation.

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[annsni]

I have to do some reaserch on this but to be fair to what Ann has said I found this;
http://dshortt.homestead.com/Wine_or_Grape_Juice_in_the_Lord_s_Supper_Simmons.htm
I think one of the misconceptions is that fermented wine of today is the same as the old wine or sour wine of the bible. It is not.

Any other study would be welcomed.

Yep, that's what I learned from a former rabbai who is now a believer after fighting God for years. He said that juice would NEVER be used and that it would actually be offensive to do so.

 

[freeatlast]

Yep, that's what I learned from a former rabbai who is now a believer after fighting God for years. He said that juice would NEVER be used and that it would actually be offensive to do so.

There does however need to be a clarification made here. The wine mentioned in the bible is absolutely nothing like the wine of today. Our wine today has from 12 to 13.5 percent alcohol and back then before it was cut with water at best it had around 5 percent. Then they would cut it with water and add honey to make it drinkable because it was sour. The wine of today would be what the bible calls strong drink and warned against drinking it at all.
The wine that the Jews used for their religious practices as well as personal use was diluted normally 4 to 5 times and as much as 20 according to Josephus which would have rendered it someplace around .5 to 1 percent alcohol content on average to as low as .25 if cut 20 times.

The wine today is made from an industrial process and the wine back then came from grape juice souring and being cut. So in fact while it may very well have had alcohol in it, it was so diluted that there was no possible way to have any influence in the person when used for religious ceremonies or even personal use unless extremely abused, lingered long at.
So because of this no one who is being honest with scripture can justify drinking what is sold in stores today and claim that God approves as it is all strong drink.
So for this discussion that school made the proper call, calling the staff back to biblical principles, and it unintentionally weeded out some who were in rebellion making it a double blessing.

 

[annsni]

There does however need to be a clarification made here. The wine mentioned in the bible is absolutely nothing like the wine of today. Our wine today has from 12 to 13.5 percent alcohol and back then before it was cut with water at best it had around 5 percent. Then they would cut it with water and add honey to make it drinkable because it was sour. The wine of today would be what the bible calls strong drink and warned against drinking it at all.
The wine that the Jews used for their religious practices as well as personal use was diluted normally 4 to 5 times and as much as 20 according to Josephus which would have rendered it someplace around .5 to 1 percent alcohol content on average to as low as .25 if cut 20 times.

The wine today is made from an industrial process and the wine back then came from grape juice souring and being cut. So in fact while it may very well have had alcohol in it, it was so diluted that there was no possible way to have any influence in the person when used for religious ceremonies or even personal use unless extremely abused, lingered long at.
So because of this no one who is being honest with scripture can justify drinking what is sold in stores today and claim that God approves as it is all strong drink.
So for this discussion that school made the proper call, calling the staff back to biblical principles, and it unintentionally weeded out some who were in rebellion making it a double blessing.

No matter what, it had alcohol in it. There are those who say ANY alcohol is sin - and any amount will intoxicate.

I do disagree that "strong drink" is forbidden because it is side by side with wine when God says to take money and buy what the heart desires and enjoy it. I DO think that we need to be wise and be very careful if we decide to partake. When I did drink, I very much liked a wine spritzer - wine mixed with seltzer. It was refreshing and tasty and had very little alcohol.

Additionally, to go back to the argument, it is clear that the wine that Jesus would have had at the "Last Supper" had to contain alcohol.

 

[freeatlast]

No matter what, it had alcohol in it. There are those who say ANY alcohol is sin - and any amount will intoxicate.

I do disagree that "strong drink" is forbidden because it is side by side with wine when God says to take money and buy what the heart desires and enjoy it. I DO think that we need to be wise and be very careful if we decide to partake. When I did drink, I very much liked a wine spritzer - wine mixed with seltzer. It was refreshing and tasty and had very little alcohol.

Additionally, to go back to the argument, it is clear that the wine that Jesus would have had at the "Last Supper" had to contain alcohol.

I would point out a couple things. First the only place in the bible where it looks like drinking strong drink is acceptable is in the Deut 14 passage you pointed to in one verse about the tithe and it reads;
[SIZE=+0]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, [/SIZE]

Keep in mind that Hebrew is very difficult to translate and does not always come across well into the English not to mention that the mentioned practice is so different then what we see in other places it raises questions if we are understanding what is going on.
Second which raises a flag about that passage and building a belief on it is that it is the only passage in the whole bible that sounds like strong drink is acceptable. Every other passage and there are over 15 of them warns against it. The only exception being for someone who is dying to help wiht pain.
Third every person in the bible who was to be set apart for service was not to touch strong drink. If we are set apart in our hearts I think we should follow the same. Just because something tastes good is not reason to use it when we have all the warnings against it.
So like I said that school did a good thing and in doing it they got rid of some rebellious people.

 

[agedman]

No matter what, it had alcohol in it. There are those who say ANY alcohol is sin - and any amount will intoxicate.

Yep, it is both a sinful motive and any in taking, no matter the amount or purpose - to toxify the body in some way. We are not to mistreat the body.

I do disagree that "strong drink" is forbidden because it is side by side with wine when God says to take money and buy what the heart desires and enjoy it.

The Deut. passage is in no way giving the modern man permission to drink wine. NNE fulfills the conditions the passage sets forth, therefore the permission is invalid not only for personal use but also because the medical usage is no longer necessary.

Additionally, to go back to the argument, it is clear that the wine that Jesus would have had at the "Last Supper" had to contain alcohol.

Why would you think that? There is no "proof" that the wine of the last supper contained an intoxicant, nor that Jesus would violate his own Word being the very Word of God.

He cannot state that "win is a mocker" and in the same passage "strong drink is raging" and then support the use and even provide that which would cause someone to mock and rage.

Christ cannot have remained the absolute pure lamb without spot, blemish, or disqualifying attribute and partaken of any substance in which the very purpose of that substance is to be deceitful.

The only permission given in Scriptures for a believer (for believers are not ones that lack hope) is under doctor authority. Although never stating it, Dr. Luke traveling with Paul would most likely have suggested the temporary remedy for Tim's stomach problems.

 

[Steadfast Fred]

Took the liberty of looking up the word "lees".

From etymonline.com
lees Look up lees at Dictionary.com

late 14c., from O.Fr. lies, plural of lie "sediment," probably from Celtic (cf. O.Ir. lige "a bed, a lying"), from PIE root *legh- "to lie" (see lie (v.2)).
mother of pearl Look up mother of pearl at Dictionary.com

1510, translating M.L. mater perlarum, with the first element perhaps connected in popular imagination with obsolete mother "a thick substance concreting in liquors; the lees or scum concreted" [Johnson], which is from the root of mud.
feces Look up feces at Dictionary.com

also faeces, c.1400, "dregs," from L. faeces "sediment, dregs," pl. of faex (gen. faecis) "grounds, sediment, lees, dregs," of unknown origin. Specific sense of "human excrement" is from 1630s.
dregs Look up dregs at Dictionary.com

c.1300 (implied in surname Dryngedregges), from O.N. dregg "sediment," from P.Gmc. *drag- (cf. O.H.G. trestir, Ger. Trester "grapeskins, husks"), from PIE *dher- (1) "to make muddy." Replaced O.E. cognate dræst, dærst "dregs, lees." Figurative use is from 1530s.
stale (adj.) Look up stale at Dictionary.com

c.1300, "freed from dregs or lees" (of ale, wine, etc.), i.e. "having stood long enough to clear," cognate with M.Du. stel "stale" (of beer), and probably ultimately from P.Gmc. base *sta- "stand," the source of O.E. standan "to stand," Perhaps via O.Fr. estaler "halt," from Frankish *stal- "position" (see stall (n.1)). The meaning "not fresh" is first recorded late 15c. Figurative sense (of immaterial things) is recorded from 1560s.

Of interest, not one of those definitions mention anything about fermentation.

 

[Steadfast Fred]

Yep, it is both a sinful motive and any in taking, no matter the amount or purpose - to toxify the body in some way. We are not to mistreat the body.




The Deut. passage is in no way giving the modern man permission to drink wine. NNE fulfills the conditions the passage sets forth, therefore the permission is invalid not only for personal use but also because the medical usage is no longer necessary.




Why would you think that? There is no "proof" that the wine of the last supper contained an intoxicant, nor that Jesus would violate his own Word being the very Word of God.

He cannot state that "win is a mocker" and in the same passage "strong drink is raging" and then support the use and even provide that which would cause someone to mock and rage.

Christ cannot have remained the absolute pure lamb without spot, blemish, or disqualifying attribute and partaken of any substance in which the very purpose of that substance is to be deceitful.

The only permission given in Scriptures for a believer (for believers are not ones that lack hope) is under doctor authority. Although never stating it, Dr. Luke traveling with Paul would most likely have suggested the temporary remedy for Tim's stomach problems.

Since that which was drank at the Last Supper is only referred to in the Bible as "fruit of the vine" and "cup", I cannot understand how annsni or anyone else comes to the conclusion that that beverage was alcoholic.

 

[righteousdude2]

Some Thoughts for You in 4 Different Tongues....

Since that which was drank at the Last Supper is only referred to in the Bible as "fruit of the vine" and "cup", I cannot understand how annsni or anyone else comes to the conclusion that that beverage was alcoholic.

只是一个明智的话 [您是号称是]:法官不恐怕你們作出评判。 不管是你法官,也有可能出现,你有什么见不得人的衣柜,等待被显示。

あなたは、 [ふれこみている ] 賢い判断でありませんでした :Ye 傷にちょうど単語と判断しています。 それはあなたが判断することであるものは何でも、あなたがあなたの戸棚の骨格が示されるのを待って、その可能性がある。

אשר אתה professing כדי להיות]: שופט לא אל תדון את חברך עד שתגיע למקומו. מה היא כי אתה שופט, ישנן אפשרויות כי לך יש שלדים בארון שלך, ימתין לכם להיות מוצג.

Μόνο ο νοών νοείτω [που είστε υπερασπίζονται να]: δικαστής δεν διακυβεύει ye να κριθεί. Ό,τι κι αν ήταν αυτό που κρίνετε, υπάρχουν δυνατότητες που έχετε ένοχα μυστικά στην ντουλάπα σας, περιμένοντας να εμφανιστεί.

(מ"ק) שלום (ברכה)
(ש"ע) שלום (שם עברי) :thumbs:

 

[Steadfast Fred]

Are you trying to impress me or something? It isn't working.

 

[Fred's Wife]

Some Thoughts for You in 4 Different Tongues....

...and your point is??

 

[preachinjesus]

It should be noted that just throwing something into Google Translate and copying and pasting the result doesn't usually produce an accurate translation.

 

[humblethinker]

Employees of Shorter University desert the school in droves following new president's imposition of 'lifestyle' regulations:

http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/archives/2012/05/baptist_univers.html

"The university, in Rome, Ga., now requires faculty to sign a personal lifestyle statement that says they will not engage in illegal drug use or drink alcohol in restaurants, stadiums and other public locations. “I reject as acceptable all sexual activity not in agreement with the Bible, including, but not limited to, premarital sex, adultery, and homosexuality,” the statement reads.

The Georgia Baptist Convention began appointing all trustees of the school’s board in 2005 after a ruling in the state convention’s favor by the Georgia Supreme Court."

This part right here may be a huge reason why they have lost personnel: "...drink alcohol in restaurants, stadiums and other public locations."

Who in good conscience would sign such a document if they know that when they participate in communion at their church they will violate their oath to the school? I have not read the entire document but I wonder if they have an allowance for this? What if they know that when they go on a Mediteranian cruise that they will enjoy a glass of wine with their husband in the restaurant? Why should the faculty surrender their conscience to their employer? Hopefully the document addressed this. If not, this seems to be an unthoughtfully crafted 'oath'.

 

[Steadfast Fred]

Nothing wrong with the oath at all. I commend Shorter for the standard they are setting forth for their students and faculties.

We are to abstain from all appearance of evil.