Communion: does it matter if ......

[unprofitable]

You asked how the children of Israel could make wine in the wilderness. The question would seem to indicate that you think that they had no access to grapes in order to make wine. Wine grows in what is often hilly and arid land. The children of Isreal in their travels would go thru many lands with both prepared vineyards and wild grapes therefore no shortage of grapes to make wine and since grapes will ferment on their own, no shortage of wine. What the Lord commands he also provides.

 

[unprofitable]

Biblicist has already cited the Mishnah. Like I said, go back and read SLOWLY.

 

[Forever Settled]

You asked how the children of Israel could make wine in the wilderness. The question would seem to indicate that you think that they had no access to grapes in order to make wine. Wine grows in what is often hilly and arid land. The children of Isreal in their travels would go thru many lands with both prepared vineyards and wild grapes therefore no shortage of grapes to make wine and since grapes will ferment on their own, no shortage of wine. What the Lord commands he also provides.

Did you ever find a sinner Being pointed to the wedding for salvation ?

Did you ever find the element of the Lord’s supper identified as wine ?

The Saviour does not use oinos, the usual word for wine, but adopts the phrase "genneematos tees ampelou," "this fruit of the vine."


Was it because oinos was a generic word, including the juice of the grape in all its stages, that he chose a more specific phrase?


Was it because he had previously selected the vine as the illustration of himself as the true vine, and his disciples as the fruit bearing branches, and the juice as "the pure blood of the grape"? (Deut. 32:14.)

The Apostle Paul, 1 Cor. 10:15, not only avoids the word oinos (wine), but calls the liquid used "the cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?"


And in 11:25 he quotes the exact words of Christ, "This cup is the New Testament in my blood."


The word oinos is specifically Not used......for a reason.

 

[unprofitable]

Those at the wedding were in the old covenant. Christ was showing them the new covenant by the example of saving the best until last. It means the new covenant was better IN EVERY WAY. Please go back and read the post AGAIN.

I have NEVER said or even insinuated that Christ was a gutton, drunkard, or had a devil. Your acting like I said such makes you a false witness.

I have given you many scriptures and you give me answers like did they have a breath-o-lyser.
I seem to have to have to repeat myself for you quiet often. It may not make any difference if you READ SLOWLY. As the scriptures say, Except a man be born again (from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God (and his righteousness shown in the new covenant.) We can also interpret it, Except a man can see the kingdom of God (and the covenant), he has not been born again.

 

[Forever Settled]

I have NEVER said or even insinuated that Christ was a gutton, drunkard, or had a devil. Your acting like I said such makes you a false witness.

You accept their false allegation that Jesus was a drunk.

They made other allegations gluttony and devil possessed.

You have no right to believe one of their lies about the savior .....but why not believe all three lies ?

 

[Forever Settled]

I seem to have to have to repeat myself for you quiet often.

I know how you feel .......did you ever findthe element of the Lords supper identified as Wine....???
Do I need to keep repeating myself ?

I just posted about oinos.....no reply from you.

I have asked WHERE any sinner was taught about the New Covenant by using the wedding ? Where ?

I find myself Repeating over and over to you.

 

[unprofitable]

Matthew :26:29 and Mark 14:25 are the answer to your fruit of the vine question.. He says, "But I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new (new wine) with you in my Father's kingdom." We know NEW wine must be put into NEW bottles. Only those in the new covenant understanding (which the remnant of the old testament understood) will be in the kingdom of God in His very presence. (Lu 13:29) This is the NEW covenant, as a doctrinal teaching, represented as the NEW WINE being put into NEW bottles (vessels) as the body of Christ. He said specifically, new WINE not grape juice. Psalms 104:15, speaks of the Lord giving , "wine that make the heart of man glad" as a blessing. Neither is this speaking of grape juice in its original state. Only wine can do this. Paul, in I Cor 10:15 uses Psalms as a reference with both talking about wine as a blessing

There are 5 words for wine in the scriptures, They all mean wine as a fermented drink.

 

[unprofitable]

I Tim 3:3 says in regard to the qualifications of a bishop that he is not given to wine, I Tim 3:8 clarifies the intent in the word given when he gives the qualifications of a deacon in not given to MUCH wine. Why allow the bishop but not the deacon? There is no difference in either verse. It is clear in using given, he is talking about being overcome of wine. There is no prohibition for either, just the excess. He surely is not prohibiting much grape juice.

 

[unprofitable]

The two previous posts are answer to your question about oinos. Since most of my posts seem to be longer and involve more, that is why takes me a little longer to post. I, unlike you, will give you an answer

 

[Forever Settled]

Matthew :26:29 and Mark 14:25 are the answer to your fruit of the vine question.. He says, "But I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new (new wine) with you in my Father's kingdom."

Matthew 26:29
29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.

Why are you adding the word WINE ?

Adding to his word is condemned by God !

You never have found where the element at the table was identified by the word WINE.

You have avoided my post concerning oinos and why Jesus didnt use that word.

Seems I am constantly having to repeat myself.

 

[Forever Settled]

I Tim 3:3 says in regard to the qualifications of a bishop that he is not given to wine, I Tim 3:8 clarifies the intent in the word given when he gives the qualifications of a deacon in not given to MUCH wine. Why allow the bishop but not the deacon? There is no difference in either verse. It is clear in using given, he is talking about being overcome of wine. There is no prohibition for either, just the excess. He surely is not prohibiting much grape juice.

That is a very simple question to answer !

But the subject of this thread is communion......please focus !

Did you find where the element was identified as WINE ?

Did you ever find where a sinner was directed to the wedding for instruction about the new covenant and salvation ?

Please try to focus on the answers after all they are your theories.

 

[unprofitable]

The wedding feast includes the prophesy of the new covenant. It is by the new covenant that it is revealed "the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou has sent" (Jn 17:3) Christ also say in the same verse, "And this is eternal salvation." The wedding feasts points to the new covenant, the new covenant is where we see Jn 17:3 explain what salvation is. They are all related as I am showing you by line upon line. (Isa 28:10) I am not sure how to explain it more clearly. All you have to do is connect the dots.

 

[Forever Settled]

The wedding feast includes the prophesy of the new covenant.

You keep saying that.....where is your proof ?

And So what if it does. We are discussing the element of the Lords supper.

Did you ever find that element identified as WINE. ?

Did you ever find a lost sinner directed to the wedding and taught about salvation ?

Why must I keep repeating and asking you to concentrate and stay on topic ?

 

[Forever Settled]

All you have to do is connect the dots.

No you have Zero Scripture to show for all your theories.....you jump from one thing to another.......connecting dots.

You added to Gods word......I did connect that to God ouright condemning you dishonesty.

 

[unprofitable]

I NEVER said at any time that the sinner is directed to the wedding feast for salvation. This is just anothe one of intentional attempt to pervert what I am saying because you don't have an answer. When I attributed a quote to Jerome that you had made, I had to decency to apologize. You, on the other hand intentionally attribute to me things that I have not said. By doing so you make yourself Not only a false witness, but a liar. Again, you said that I accept their false allegation that Jesus was a drunk. Again I said I NEVER believed that Jesus was ever drunk at ANY TIME. Did you not read this or are you a habitual liar?

You AGAIN avoid the point concerning bishops and deacons. That always seems to be a problem for people who try teaching being a tee-totaler as doctrine. Not given to MUCH wine. Grape juice?

Since Christ made wine AT THE TIME of the wedding, it would have to be NEW wine. NEW wine represents the NEW covenant. Only those with the understanding of the new covenant will be in the presence of the Godhead forever (eternal life) because they have the knowledge of the only true God and Jesus Christ whom he sent. I am sorry if you cannot see the teaching of the new covenant in the example of the wedding feast. As John said, A man can receive nothing unless it be given to him from heaven. (Jn 3:27)

Theory that is backed up by evidence becomes fact.

 

[Forever Settled]

I NEVER said at any time that the sinner is directed to the wedding feast for salvation. This is just anothe one of intentional attempt to pervert what I am saying because you don't have an answer.

Show where that was taught.....Leave the sinner part out....show where the NEW Covenant was taught at the marriage feast and I will apologize.

You jump all over the place from Hosea to pastors and deacons.....then you ADD words to a verse.

 

[Forever Settled]

You AGAIN avoid the point concerning bishops and deacons. That always seems to be a problem for people who try teaching being a tee-totaler as doctrine. Not given to MUCH wine. Grape juice?

That is NOT the Topic of this thread.....Remember....... start a thread on that subject I will be happy to participate !

 

[Forever Settled]

Since Christ made wine AT THE TIME of the wedding, it would have to be NEW wine. NEW wine represents the NEW covenant. Only those with the understanding of the new covenant will be in the presence of the Godhead forever (eternal life) because they have the knowledge of the only true God and Jesus Christ whom he sent.

How does any of this Apply to the Lord’s supper ??????

Was the element of the supper identified as WINE.....if so WHERE ?

 

[Forever Settled]

As John said, A man can receive nothing unless it be given to him from heaven. (Jn 3:27)

Here is what God said about adding to his word.......something You are guilty of :

Deuteronomy 4:2
2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.

 

[unprofitable]

I have gone to multiple topics today because I was giving you and answer to the points you made Tuesday that I was not able to get to yesterday. I told you I would not avoid nor not give an answer to your questions, You should have recognized that.
.
Again, go back and read VERY SLOWLY my posts. I have showed the evidence that wine is an element of the Lord's supper is made plain in the teachings of the wedding feast.