Champions of moderation- not abstinence

[webdog]

dawg, I don't have power to open the eyes of the blind, so attempting to correct you is futile.

For kicks and grins, lets say you're right. Then Christ is no champion of moderation.

You are right, He is a champion of personal accountability, something your false soteriology gets in the way of understanding. I suppose none of the thousands he fed didn't eat too much either.

Just shows how the determinist limits God's sovereignty by needing to play both sides of the game board.

 

[Aaron]

In one post you assert Christ provided more intoxicating drink for those already intoxicated, in this one you assert he did not, that he only provided it for those who drink responsibly, i.e., not yet intoxicated.

:laugh::laugh:

 

[saturneptune]

In one post you assert Christ provided more intoxicating drink for those already intoxicated, in this one you assert he did not, that he only provided it for those who drink responsibly, i.e., not yet intoxicated.

:laugh::laugh:

That is because they were intoxicated before they weren't.

 

[webdog]

In one post you assert Christ provided more intoxicating drink for those already intoxicated, in this one you assert he did not, that he only provided it for those who drink responsibly, i.e., not yet intoxicated.

:laugh::laugh:

No, you just have the reading comprehension of a snail. I said He provided it for everyone at the wedding, and those who consumed it were personally accountable and responsible.

 

[Luke2427]

Albert Barnes is the first to come to mind. I'll look up more later, if you wish. (I'm at work now and have 4th activities later tonight).

First of all, why do you consider Albert Barnes an "eminent scholar"? He may be a fine scholar, but I just want to be sure that you don't think he is a scholarly source simply because he wrote a respectable commentary. I hope you are better educated than to think that way.

Secondly, you ought to provide quotes by the man to identify where he said that the wine Jesus made was not fermented.

Thirdly, you have to deal with the fact that, if Barnes truly is a scholar and IF he ACTUALLY said Jesus surely did NOT make fermented wine, that he is more than cancelled out by the myriad of other scholars who purport otherwise.

Therefore, it is worse than a wash for you. Just saying you have "eminent scholars" who back your position is not enough.

You claim that I would not listen to "eminent scholars." So will you? Will you acquiesce to eminent scholars who purport that it almost surely WAS fermented wine?

Or can I say of you, like you said of me- "not that this matters to you but eminent scholars say otherwise..."?

But let's cut to the chase: Isn't you're "belief" that Christ gave intoxicated men more with which to further intoxicate themselves really a projection of your own assertion that a degree of drunkenness is not only allowed but encouraged in the Scriptures?

Define drunkenness... BIBLICALLY... and I will gladly answer your question.

 

[Luke2427]

That is because they were intoxicated before they weren't.

It doesn't matter is they WERE intoxicated.

God provides all the food that all human beings of all the ages have ever eaten. Many of them have become gross gluttons on that food. Should we call God to account to us for providing more food for people who have already eaten to the full?

No. So WHAT if they were falling DOWN drunk??

What is the point?

 

[Aaron]

First of all, why do you consider Albert Barnes an "eminent scholar"?

Look up the word "eminent."

Secondly, you ought to provide quotes by the man to identify where he said that the wine Jesus made was not fermented.

You can look up his commentary on John 2 yourself. His commentary is freely available online.

Thirdly, you have to deal with the fact that, if Barnes truly is a scholar and IF he ACTUALLY said Jesus surely did NOT make fermented wine, that he is more than cancelled out by the myriad of other scholars who purport otherwise.

There is not a myriad of scholars who say otherwise. There is a myriad of people conferred with degrees from institutions of varying worth (none of which centered on oenology) who assume otherwise, but scholarship is something else entirely.

You and a myriad of others assume it's fermented, not because of your knowledge of the culture and practices of the time and region, but because of presumption and incomplete research.

There is no support from the text that the beverage was intoxicating, or that the company was intoxicated. So what this will boil down to is whether or not there was more than one kind of drink called "wine."

I'm game. Are you up to it?

Define drunkenness... BIBLICALLY... and I will gladly answer your question.

You first.

This is going to be fun. :type:

 

[Luke2427]

There is not a myriad of scholars who say otherwise. There is a myriad of people conferred with degrees from institutions of varying worth (none of which centered on oenology) who assume otherwise, but scholarship is something else entirely.

So then just the "scholars" who say what you like are good scholars, right?

Gotcha.

You and a myriad of others assume it's fermented, not because of your knowledge of the culture and practices of the time and region, but because of presumption and incomplete research.

Right, because that is what scholars do- incomplete research.

Barnes is one in a million who believe the wine Jesus made was not fermented.

You just stick with Barnes, not because of your knowledge of the culture and practices of the time and region, but because of presumption and incomplete research.

There is no support from the text that the beverage was intoxicating, or that the company was intoxicated. So what this will boil down to is whether or not there was more than one kind of drink called "wine."

There is support from this text- not that it would be necessary.

The Pharisees did not see Jesus drinking lots of grape juice and conclude that he was a drunkard.

Furthermore, why in Hades would it NOT be fermented?? Why would anybody BEGIN with the notion "It could not be fermented"?

Especially since fermented drink is commended by God in the Scripture.

You would expect the God who COMMENDED it in the OT, when he robed himself in human flesh and dwelt among us, to DRINK it.

I'm game. Are you up to it?

Yes.

You first.

It is a lifestyle of inebriation.

That was easy- YOUR TURN.