Even with a microbrew?
-
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!
Drinking
- Thread starter Calminian
- Start date
- Status
Been around drinkers and alcoholics all my life. When I was little dad would heat up rye whiskey and honey for me when I had a bad cold. I also got a dixi cup of beer to share with him and sat at the bar occasionally and pounded down copious sodas from the fountain no big deal, but it was apart of that culture. Today I don’t have cravings for alcohol however both my kid brother and my wife are both alcoholics (recovering). If you can have a few pops of any alcohol and put it down and not go back to it, chances are your ok with the stuff however when you get nervous w/o it or crave it then you might want to think about not drinking. And it will get ugly... DWI-1, DWI-2, DWI-3....maybe some prison time, maybe a divorce blah blah
And here is the common delusional saying”you don’t understand, I’m not an alcoholic.” When they are pulling your keister out of a car wreckage, “ you don’t understand, I’m not an alcoholic.” When they are taking your kids away... when you hit your wife and the cops come for you... when you have irreversible damage to your liver and your dieing in a hospital....” you don’t understand, I’m not an alcoholic.”
So think twice
And here is the common delusional saying”you don’t understand, I’m not an alcoholic.” When they are pulling your keister out of a car wreckage, “ you don’t understand, I’m not an alcoholic.” When they are taking your kids away... when you hit your wife and the cops come for you... when you have irreversible damage to your liver and your dieing in a hospital....” you don’t understand, I’m not an alcoholic.”
So think twice
You know, if you had shown that you understood my linguistic argument, I might agree with you. But you haven't. Let me try again to see if you follow me.
1. The head of the feast spoke of bringing out the good "wine" first in John 2:10.
2. But he pointed out that after the guests have "well drunk" (KJV) the poor stuff is brought out.
3. For "well drunk," he used the Greek word methuo, which always means "to be drunk." (I checked all of the 6 usages in the NT, and many in the LXX.) There is a different word for "I drink" (water, etc.), which is pino.
4. Following the logic, when Jesus made His "good stuff," we must decide something. If Jesus made alcoholic wine, He was then providing alcohol to a plural of people who were already drunk. (It doesn't matter if there were only two and the rest were not drunk. My point still stands.)
5. I say that Jesus did not make alcoholic wine, but "new wine" (ho oinos ho neos in Mark 2:22 & elsewhere). If He had, he would have been disobeying Hab. 2:15.
Please, that's ignorant. Grammar is a system of logic with rules and relationships. All languages have exceptions to the grammar, but Japanese perhaps the fewest exceptions of all, and that's what I am a linguist in. I teach Greek (lots of logic there), and I've also taught English (not so much logic--what a wild language we have), and studied Chinese (logical) and Latin (logical).
Well, we try not to.
Actually, the bigger danger is having your presuppositions rule your translation. I don't get too emotional when I translate, but occasionally I get excited when I discover new truth or a better rendering.
At least Van never has said that consulting the original languages of the Bible is how you start cults!
The JW never got that memo, as their translators under oath were shown not even able to read and know the Greek alphabet!At least Van never has said that consulting the original languages of the Bible is how you start cults!
The Japanese JW version was translated from the English JW version. Whew! And there was plenty of theological bias in that one.
Yes, but Grammar is not logic, itself. You can have a good command of the language and still draw many false conclusions (as you are).
Agreed!Well, we try not to.
That seems a bit out of context, to me, what with that section being an oracle against the Chaldeans. Even ignoring that, nearly every English version I've read keeps the "giving your neighbor alcohol" and the "so you can look at them naked" in a single clause, and I can't imagine any of us ascribing that motivation to Jesus.
Woe unto him that giveth his neighbour drink,
that puttest thy bottle to him, and makest him drunken also,
that thou mayest look on their nakedness!
Regardless of the interpretation of that verse, are you saying that it is a good thing to give your neighbor alcohol, and something that Jesus would have done?
For my part, when Japanese would ask me why I don't drink ("Is it your religion?") I would say, "I don't need it! I have the Lord Jesus, and joy every day." Once when we had my wife's Japanese teacher over, we played "Aggravation" with them. The husband said to me, "I don't get it. We're not drinking, but you are having a great time!"
I really don't understand why Christians think they have to drink. Don't they have the Lord Jesus and eternal salvation? Don't they have the Holy Spirit and His "Love, joy, peace" and the rest of the fruit of the Spirit? So drinking to get a "buzz" is the solution to the Christian life?
Last edited:
So prove I'm wrong. Show me where I'm not being logical. So far you've not answered my point but: hinted that I might be starting a cult, said over and over that I'm not logical, accused me of being a liberal, etc. etc.
The obvious conclusions are: (1) You can't answer my argument. (2) Your method of "debate" is simply personal attacks. (I'm still waiting to be called "Hitler."
)So prove I'm wrong. Show me where I'm not being logical. So far you've not answered my point but: hinted that I might be starting a cult, said over and over that I'm not logical, accused me of being a liberal, etc. etc.
The obvious conclusions are: (1) You can't answer my argument. (2) Your method of "debate" is simply personal attacks. (I'm still waiting to be called "Hitler."
The post above is a great example. you interpret based on what you believe Jesus should have done, rather than what the text actually says.
You've made the argument that if some had drank too much wine, then Jesus would have then made grape juice for them rather than real wine. It's an emotional approach.
The overriding issue IMO is the health and well being of our local body and the members in particular..
And It's not just wine.
e.g. Even If peanut butter offends your brother - don't do it, especially in his/her presence.
Give it up completely if you can.
Romans 14
21 It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.
22 Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.
And It's not just wine.
e.g. Even If peanut butter offends your brother - don't do it, especially in his/her presence.
Give it up completely if you can.
Romans 14
21 It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.
22 Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.
I think we can all agree on this.
Well, the exegesis of that verse was what I really quoted you to discuss.
Have you given any thought to gluttons amongst the 5000 fed at Bethsaida?
Interesting article. Nevertheless, drinking beverage with alcoholic content (pro or con) is not right or wrong based on science, but rather on what the Bible teaches one way or another.
My interpretation of the facts scattered throughout the entire Bible is that drunkenness is absolutely condemned but a restriction against all drinking wine is not absolute.
Well have you ever tried it?
I have pointed out that the text actually says there were drunk people there. Then I argue from the character of Jesus the sinless One. My argument is Christological, not emotional.
"Thus, on the basis of both direct affirmation and silence on certain points, we must conclude that the Bible uniformly witnesses to the sinlessness of Jesus" (Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd ed., p. 736).
Now, regardless of what someone already said here on this thread, it is incorrect that the Greek word oinos only means fermented, alcoholic wine. It does not. I mentioned the Greek phrase from three Gospels for "new wine," which is ho oinos ho neos. So there are clearly times when oinos means grape juice. This means I am perfectly okay to say Jesus made grape juice.
As for the substance of my argument, it is based on the character of Jesus. Jesus is perfect and sinless and completely loving. He would never give cocaine to an addict or booze to a drunkard.
So if you were downtown and passed a drunk, homeless guy, and he said, "I need money for more booze," would you give it to him. (Now don't get emotional here.
) "What would Jesus do?"My argument is hardly emotional. I've not felt emotional at all during our exchange--except when I laughed when you thought cults are started by looking at the original Greek and Hebrew of the Bible.
So, please state your position clearly. Did Jesus provide alcoholic wine for people who were already drunk at the wedding in Cana? Yes or no?
Last edited:
- Status