• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Did Jesus turn the water into wine, or grape juice

Did Jesus turn the water into wine, or grape juice?


  • Total voters
    59

rjprince

Active Member
BB,

to repeat. When you take a position, if it is a position that is consistent with the rest of Scripture you are willing to play more than just a few "records" on the matter. If your position is consistent with the Word, you will be able to deal with ALL the passages in a manner that it consistent, literal, grammatical, and historical. I am not seeing this in your posts.

btw, Webster does not give heb and grk defs. Nor does he attempt to relate his defs to all relevant Biblical passages. His is a dictionary, not a commentary.
 

Frenchy

New Member
BB,

When John does not drink wine, it is an alcoholic beverage that is being spoken of? But when Jesus comes drinking wine it is now suddenly non-alcoholic, and then just a few words later a winebibber is "a person who regularly drinks alcoholic beverages". Does this imply that a winebibber can drink wine on irregular occasions.

Oh, just a sudden thought. It may have been irregularity that prompted Paul to suggest that Peter drink a little wine!

I am overcome with a deepening feeling that I am wasting my breath here...
Good point and yes we are wasting our time
I thought Paul told Timothy to drink a little wine, that point was brought up in the long article i posted
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Originally posted by Frenchy:
RJPRINCE i'm not sure it is worth argueing with legalist, they have to DEFEND their view by twisting scripture. it is what they have been taught. it's called seperation, legalist cannot be conformed to the world in any shape, form or manner.

HOG just saw your posting correcting DHK on the Lion and Lamb thing glad to know others know the right scripture verse. i was still on page 13 when i read DHK post and answered it.
Personal attacks (calling people legalists) and false allegations are not tolerated. This is a second warning.
If I have twisted Scripture then take the Scripture and demonstrate it. Isn't it odd how you can make an accusation on this board and are totally unable to substantiate it??
DHK
 

Hope of Glory

New Member
Originally posted by rjprince:
BB,

When John does not drink wine, it is an alcoholic beverage that is being spoken of? But when Jesus comes drinking wine it is now suddenly non-alcoholic, and then just a few words later a winebibber is "a person who regularly drinks alcoholic beverages". Does this imply that a winebibber can drink wine on irregular occasions.
No, it simply implies that some people will twist Scriptures to meet whatever preconceptions are held.
 

Hope of Glory

New Member
Originally posted by DHK:
Personal attacks (calling people legalists) and false allegations are not tolerated. This is a second warning.
If I have twisted Scripture then take the Scripture and demonstrate it. Isn't it odd how you can make an accusation on this board and are totally unable to substantiate it??
DHK
It's been shown repeatedly.
 

Frenchy

New Member
Sorry DHK but what do you call it when people take scipture and twist it to DEMAND something is there when it isn't. a legalist is someone who says the bible says you must follow a command or rule that the bible doesn't really say it does. Jehovah Witnesses say you cannot celebrate Christmas and birthdays and 4th of July etc and use scripture to back it up. Cathlics say remaining celibate is a must for priests and nuns and use scripture to back it up, Mormons believe you must have more than one wife and use scripture to back it up

Why is this any different?

It has been pointed out and accuratly so that drinking is not a sin, being DRUNK is
to say otherwise is being legalistic.
that is the way I and others i know see it!
 

rjprince

Active Member
Originally posted by standingfirminChrist:
Paul never told Peter to drink wine!
Sorry. My bad. Timothy.

Oh, wait, that was probably grape juice, too.

What saith the Scripture?

1Ti 5:23

(ALT) No longer be drinking water [only], _but_ be using a little wine, because of your stomach and your frequent infirmities.

(ASV) Be no longer a drinker of water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities.

(BBE) Do not take only water as your drink, but take a little wine for the good of your stomach, and because you are frequently ill.

(CEV) Stop drinking only water. Take a little wine to help your stomach trouble and the other illnesses you always have.

(EMTV) No longer drink water only, but use a little wine on account of your stomach, and your frequent illnesses.

(ESV) (No longer drink only water, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments.)

(GB) Drinke no longer water, but vse a litle wine for thy stomakes sake, and thine often infirmities.

(GNB) Do not drink water only, but take a little wine to help your digestion, since you are sick so often.

(GNT) Μηκέτι ὑδροπότει, ἀλλὰ οἴνῳ ὀλίγῳ χρῶ διὰ τὸν στόμαχόν σου καὶ τὰς πυκνάς σου ἀσθενείας.

(GNT-TR) μηκετι υδροποτει αλλ οινω ολιγω χρω δια τον στομαχον σου και τας πυκνας σου ασθενειας

(GNT-V) μηκετι υδροποτει Aαλλα TSBαλλ οινω ολιγω χρω δια τον στομαχον TSBσου και τας πυκνας σου ασθενειας

(GW) Stop drinking only water. Instead, drink a little wine for your stomach because you are frequently sick.

(ISV) Stop drinking only water, but use a little wine for your stomach because of your frequent illnesses.

(KJ2000) Drink no longer water only, but use a little wine for your stomach's sake and your frequent illnesses.

(KJV) Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities.

(LITV) No longer drink water, but use a little wine on account of your stomach and your frequent infirmities.

(MKJV) Drink water no longer, but use a little wine for your stomach's sake, and for your frequent infirmities.

(MSG) And don't worry too much about what the critics will say. Go ahead and drink a little wine, for instance; it's good for your digestion, good medicine for what ails you.

(NASB) No longer drink water exclusively, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments.

(YLT) no longer be drinking water, but a little wine be using, because of thy stomach and of thine often infirmities;
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Originally posted by Hope of Glory:
It's been shown repeatedly.
That was the first post I made on that subject. Obviously it hasn't been refuted repeatedly. As I said "Showing grace to other posters" is a rule one needs to abide by.
DHK
 

Hope of Glory

New Member
Luke 17:21 is probably one of the most misused and abused passages in the Bible, particularly by those who want to try to "prove" that the Kingdom is just some mystical, magical feeling or something.

There are 5 main passages in the New Testament that are used by those that believe that the kingdom of God is spiritual and in the hearts of men rather than a physical, literal, and future kingdom on this earth that shall last “one thousand years.” The passages are: Luke 17:20-21; Romans 14:17; 1Corinthians 4:20; Colossians 1:13; and Revelation 1:9.

One thing to keep in mind is that these are exceptional passages. The phrase “kingdom of God” appears in 68 verses of the New Testament and the single word “kingdom” appears 158 times in 150 verses. The majority of passages on the kingdom can be easily proven by plain reading to be something that is literal and future and will last “a thousand years” on this earth.

A basic rule of Bible interpretation is that if the majority of texts teach one view and there is an apparent exception to the rule that seems to contradict the others, then the proper approach is to consider possible interpretations of that exception that harmonizes with the clearer texts. One thing is certain: God does not contradict Himself in the Scriptures. We’re going to look at how these exceptional passages harmonize with the majority.

¨The first verse that many use to try to perpetuate the idea of a spiritualized Kingdom is [Luke 17:20-21]. Many people, such as amillennialists, point to the questionable translation of the Greek word “entos” which has been translated by the King James as “within you.” They say that the Kingdom of God is only spiritual or is somehow mystically inside a person. However, in this passage, Jesus is responding to the Pharisees not His disciples! Jesus is answering the Pharisees’ question, “When the Kingdom of God should come?” In the next verse, verse 22, it begins, “And he said unto the disciples”. In the same context, he turns and addresses his own disciples in verse 22. The Pharisees were not his disciples! In verses 20 and 21, he’s talking to the Pharisees, and then he turns to talk to his disciples.

The Pharisees rejected the signs that Jesus had given to prove that he was the Christ; the Messiah. How could God's spiritual kingdom be within them? If the kingdom of God were within anyone spiritually it surely would not have been in the unbelieving Pharisees.

This verse completely goes against the view that the kingdom of God is within the hearts of people that have accepted Jesus as the Messiah, because the only time in the Scriptures that it is used, it is used in reference to those that had rejected Jesus to be the Christ.

The English translation “within you” does not make any sense because the Pharisees had rejected Jesus as their Messiah. The 1611 KJV translators were not sure how best to translate this word, so they included a marginal note with the alternate reading, "among you." This is obviously the true meaning of the word in this context. It is translated "among you" or "in your midst" in various other translations such as the NASB, RSV, BBE, NLT, NJB, NET and the Rotherham translation.
 
The devil can twist scripture. He tried that with Jesus Christ in the wilderness and the mountain. Unfortunately, those who are weak will be fooled by his lies and will see no wrong in taking that one drink that will lead them to a life of misery, poverty, and utter destruction.
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Originally posted by Frenchy:
Sorry DHK but what do you call it when people take scipture and twist it to DEMAND something is there when it isn't. a legalist is someone who says the bible says you must follow a command or rule that the bible doesn't really say it does. Jehovah Witnesses say you cannot celebrate Christmas and birthdays and 4th of July etc and use scripture to back it up. Cathlics say remaining celibate is a must for priests and nuns and use scripture to back it up, Mormons believe you must have more than one wife and use scripture to back it up

Why is this any different?

It has been pointed out and accuratly so that drinking is not a sin, being DRUNK is
to say otherwise is being legalistic.
that is the way I and others i know see it!
"Be ye holy as I am holy."
Is this also legalistic.
Some of you would say it is.
 

rjprince

Active Member
ALL,

Everyone is posting way to fast for everyone to keep up. I started this one, but if I could put it on hold for about 24 hours to allow everyone a bit more time to think before posting I would...

DHK

This IS NOT A REQUEST TO CLOSE.

Everyone else,

IT IS A REQUEST TO BACK OFF FOR A BIT...
 
Ephesians 5:18 And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;

Notice the contrast?

How can one be filled with the Spirit if one has even one drink of alcohol in him? Alcohol is a process of death. The Spirit has no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness.

Since alcohol can only be produced through decay, or death... Ephesians 5 is not speaking of drinking in moderation, but rather, abstaining from fermented drink altogether.
 

Frenchy

New Member
BECAUSE THE TERM LEGALIST MEANS ONE WHO ADHERES TO A LAW, IF YOU ARE FOLLOWING THE COMMANDS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT, UNDER THE DEFINITION OF LEGALIST, YOU MIGHT INDEED BE GUILTY OF THIS TERM!
calling someone a legalist isn't wrong it is an accurate term for the way some of you believe. I and others believe we have grace when it comes to gray area's such as what we can eat, drink, wear, listen to, what bible to read and what church to go to etc. these are ALL gray area's in the bible. You and a few others are making these issues absolute and mandatory. therefore being legalistic when the bible isn't. isn't this what the pharasees were accused of by Jesus?
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Originally posted by Hope of Glory:
Luke 17:21 is probably one of the most misused and abused passages in the Bible, particularly by those who want to try to "prove" that the Kingdom is just some mystical, magical feeling or something.
The said quote that has so-called been refuted many times referred to the lion and the lamb lying together in the Millennial kingdom. If this has been refuted so many times where is the refutation? Or is this a lie, and a false allegation?
I said plainly that I am speaking of an actual kingdom to come that Christ is referring to and posted Scripture to that effect. It is not a mystical kingdom. Lions and lambs do not live in mysticism. :rolleyes:
 

rjprince

Active Member
Originally posted by standingfirminChrist:
Ephesians 5:18 And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;

Notice the contrast?

How can one be filled with the Spirit if one has even one drink of alcohol in him?
UNBELIEVABLE!!!

Is that twisting?
 

Brother Bob

New Member
nj;

quote
btw, Webster does not give heb and grk defs. Nor does he attempt to relate his defs to all relevant Biblical passages. His is a dictionary, not a commentary.

No, but this is the English language and that is what the Greek and Latin were translated in to and language is a form of communication and Webster has played a great part in keeping up with the English language, so I do rely on them quite a bit. It is not my Bible but it sure has helped me over the years.
 

rjprince

Active Member
DHK,

What more could be said on this subject that has not been said?

This is a formal request, don't know if I can do this or not, but if it matters what I think at this point, please close this one. Out of hand is a phrase that comes to my mind...
 
Top