Building up the body

Sorry Bob,

Wrong again. If they were all drunk, their senses would be dulled. The governor would not have been able to ascertain that what Jesus created was the 'best wine'.

Again, if they were drunk, Jesus would have been disobeying God's command, 'Be not among winebibbers', thereby making him a sinner. I don't think so!

 

If they were drunk as you said they were, then Jesus would have been disobeying His Father's command in Proverbs 23:20; Be not among winebibbers.

Did not Jesus come to save sinners? Did He not eat with publicans and other sinners?

 

You may be right Diggin but we don't have anything else to go on except they were well drunk.

 

Yes, He did. But He would have been disobeying His Father's Word if He had humg around winebibbers.

Proverbs 23:20 20 Be not among winebibbers; among riotous eaters of flesh:

John 4:34 34 Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

The commands of Proverbs are there for a reason. For man to follow them.

 

I was raised on homemade jelly and jam and it never fermented.

You got the 4000 post!!!:applause: :applause: :applause:

 

Again, they were not well drunk

John 2:10 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 does not say they were well drunk, it says they had well drunk. They drunk sufficiently.

 

This thread reminds me of an episode of my favorite show, Andy Griffith.

Andy paid his son Opey a nickel to play nice with his little friend. This lasted awhile (about 3 post) but soon Opey told his "Pa", "you can keep your nickel Pa, It's no fun playing nice"... :laugh:

 

Helen, please re-title this thread to wine #4.

 

That's fairly close to the "I have a high tolerance" defence...

 

Your comment reminds me of a time many years ago when I was in college. I had mixed two types of pancake syrup together that we had leftover. A few months had gone by and my roommate and I invited a young man over to eat breakfast with us. When we got ready to eat I opened the syrup and we had quite a shock. We realized that the syrup had begun to ferment and it smelled rather interesting.

 

In the really old days, mother would melt wax and let it cover top of jar before putting lid on but later they came up with the rubber seals that you stretched around the jars and then later the lids were 2 peices and the center already has the rubber seal made into it. I know Jelly lasting for several years that way. It won't last forever though. Mother even canned sausage when we kill the hog in the fall of the year. She was great! They all gone now and I am 67.

Yea, I guess we have hijacked another one. sorry about that.

 

Joh 2:10 -
Have well drunk (μεθυσθῶσι)
Wyc., be filled. Tynd., be drunk. The A.V. and Tynd. are better than the Rev. when men have drunk freely. The ruler of the feast means that when the palates of the guests have become less sensitive through indulgence, an inferior quality of wine is offered. In every instance of its use in the New Testament the word means intoxication. The attempt of the advocates of the unfermented-wine theory to deny or weaken this sense by citing the well-watered garden (Isa_58:11; Jer_31:12) scarcely requires comment. One might answer by quoting Plato, who uses βαπτίζεσθαι, to be baptized, for being drunk (“Symposium,” 176). In the Septuagint the verb repeatedly occurs for watering (Psa_65:9, Psa_65:10), but always with the sense of drenching or soaking; of being drunken or surfeited with water. In Jer_48:26 (Sept. 31:26), it is found in the literal sense, to be drunken. The metaphorical use of the word has passed into common slang, as when a drunken man is said to be wetted or soaked (so Plato, above). The figurative use of the word in the Septuagint has a parallel in the use of ποτίζω, to give to drink, to express the watering of ground. So Gen_2:6, a mist watered the face of the earth, or gave it drink. Compare Gen_13:10; Deu_11:10. A curious use of the word occurs in Homer, where he is describing the stretching of a bull's hide, which, in order to make it more elastic, is soaked (μεθύουσαν) with fat (“Iliad,” xvii. 390).

 

What would you call the program, and the church formed at Pentecost. Was this not the continuation of the "kingdom is at hand" gospel of Acts 2:38 of "repent and be baptized for the remission of sin", this being the "great commission"? If I'm not mistaken this is the gospel of the Catholic church, Church of Christ and other Pentecostal churches. Do you, your church believe, preach, and teach we are of the "great commission"? I don't. That was another Church, for the Body Church was unknown and not understood until some few years after Damascus Road.

 

Yes Hope, but I really came by this knowledge in seeing "dispensations" rather than by linguistic knowledge. The church mentioned in Matthew 18:17 is apart (now) from us, as each are shown and clearly defined. Understanding Paul's gospel opens so many door's that have been left ajar, and when approached will open. It helped so very much when I finally came to realize the import of Paul's statement that he would not build on another mans (Peter) foundation. If there are two foundations, then that means two gospels of justification which Paul explains to us.

 

Bet she could also "wring the neck of the chicken" for Sunday lunch, specially if the "preacher" was coming.

At first a curious, and singular feeling when they are all gone.

 

Thought I had talked to you before. Haven't been on CARM for sometime. Matt is still President. Many knowledgeable people on that board also, with many of much knowledge of man. BB is not as hectic as CARM.

Found "Apologetics" forum there most interesting as covering all belief's. Some interesting, and deep thinkers there. Atheists and everything one can think of are accounted for. Didn't spend too much time with them, but they will pester you, As you probably know they know the Bible very well, mainly contradictions they believe they have found, and in to evolution. I avoided them unless they posted to me. I didn't spend too much time on them, but had one personal message from one thanking, as the two contradictions he had been arguing no longer were contradictions to him. From the beginning I thought him an agnostic, I didn't spend but one or two sessions with the true Atheist.