Is Drinking, Smoking, and Dipping a Sin

[DHK]

I thought we were dropping this subject.

I thought we were too.

BOTH types of alcohol are absorbed through the skin into the bloodstream. However, Isopropyl alcohol is actually more dangerous than ethyl alcohol, and is more likely to cause death when ingested even in small amounts. The tiny amount that you absorb through the skin will not intoxicate you, but even that little amount can destroy some of your intestinal flora, which (trust me) is a bad thing.

Now my point has been proved. This is an entirely different subject. It falls under the topic of "poisons," not alcoholic beverages. HCL is bad for you too. Just because this poison has the name "alcohol" does not mean that it is related to the beverage that we are speaking about, and therefore is a red herring. This is a man-made substance, made in a laboratory. It is not made in Italy, for example, via the stomping of the feet in large vats. You get the idea. Isopropyl alcohol cannot be made that way. It cannot be made the same way that the alcoholic beverages in the time of Christ were made. So again, we are way off topic.

 

[npetreley]

I thought we were too.

Now my point has been proved. This is an entirely different subject. It falls under the topic of "poisons," not alcoholic beverages. HCL is bad for you too. Just because this poison has the name "alcohol" does not mean that it is related to the beverage that we are speaking about, and therefore is a red herring. This is a man-made substance, made in a laboratory. It is not made in Italy, for example, via the stomping of the feet in large vats. You get the idea. Isopropyl alcohol cannot be made that way. It cannot be made the same way that the alcoholic beverages in the time of Christ were made. So again, we are way off topic.

You must have missed my later edit. The reason ethanol-based rubbing alcohol is a poison is NOT because ethyl alcohol is a poison. By itself, ethyl alcohol is not a poison, though it is toxic in excess, as just about everything is.

Ethanol, or ethyl alcohol (same thing) is the same alcohol that is in wine. For the purpose of rubbing alcohol, they add other ingredients to it in order to make it poison (undrinkable). That's why it's called denatured ethanol, and that's why it contains acetone and methyl isobutyl ketone.

They just don't want anyone drinking rubbing alcohol. However, the ethyl alcohol in this type of rubbing alcohol DOES absorb into the bloodstream through the skin and lungs. You just can't absorb enough to get intoxicated unless you go out of your way to absorb lots of it.

Like I said, that's the difference - intoxication, which is drunkenness, which is sinful. Nobody is arguing that the Bible says intoxication is okay.

By the way, given the choice between Isopropyl alcohol and Ethanol-based rubbing alcohol, I'd rather use the latter. As far as I know, nobody has claimed that ethanol-based rubbing alcohol damages your intestinal flora.

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

I just got off of the telephone with a second pharmacist, and while she did confirm that there is an ethyl rubbing alcohol 70%, she also confirmed that neither the ethyl, nor the isopropyl alcohols can in any way enter the bloodstream.

She informed me the only way either could damage the intestines even slightly would be if the alcohols were ingested orally.

Surely a RN from a hospital, and two licensed pharmacists from two different companies would not lie about this.

Long and short, your sources that say it is absorbed into the bloodstream are wrong.

 

[npetreley]

I just got off of the telephone with a second pharmacist, and while she did confirm that there is an ethyl rubbing alcohol 70%, she also confirmed that neither the ethyl, nor the isopropyl alcohols can in any way enter the bloodstream.

She informed me the only way either could damage the intestines even slightly would be if the alcohols were ingested orally.

Surely a RN from a hospital, and two licensed pharmacists from two different companies would not lie about this.

Long and short, your sources that say it is absorbed into the bloodstream are wrong.

No, your sources are wrong. And for what it's worth, there are also 99% ethyl and isopropyl rubbing alcohols. They're just not as common as 70%.

And, as DHK said, you get alcohol into your system when you take cough syrup or any number of other over-the-counter home remedies. So what's the difference between taking NyQuil and taking a sip of wine? I'll tell you the difference. A dose of NyQuil has more alcohol in it than the same amount of beer, and more than the same amount of some wines. NyQuil is 10% alcohol. Beer is about 3-6% alcohol. Wine is between 8-14% alcohol, so some wines are less potent than NyQuil.

The real irony in all this is that people will attend church this weekend and feel self-righteous about drinking grape juice instead of wine at communion. Then they'll go home and take a dose of NyQuil that has much more alcohol in it than they would have gotten from that tiny communion cup if it had wine in it.

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

Surely you do not think two state licensed pharmacists and a registered RN who gives multiple shots daily don't know what they are talking about!

 

[DHK]

The real irony in all this is that people will attend church this weekend and feel self-righteous about drinking grape juice instead of wine at communion. Then they'll go home and take a dose of NyQuil that has much more alcohol in it than they would have gotten from that tiny communion cup if it had wine in it.

That comparison is just ludicrous. There it is not the amount of alcohol that is even in question. It is the symbolism, as I previously explained. To use wine, alcoholic, and thus leavened to represent the holy blood and body of Christ is blasphemous. His body and blood saw no corruption. And yet you represent his body and blood with corrupted elements. It is nothing short of blasphemy. Leaven represents sin. Throughout the OT, the Passover was celebrated with unleavened bread, for this very reason. We also are commanded to celebrate it with unleavened bread and unleavened "wine" or grape juice. Here it is not the amount that is the issue, so much as the representation.

 

[npetreley]

Surely you do not think two state licensed pharmacists and a registered RN who gives multiple shots daily don't know what they are talking about!

I question whether or not you spoke to anyone at all, and if you did, then no, they obviously don't know what they're talking about. It is common knowledge that alchohol penetrates into the bloodstream so easily through the skin and lungs. I also cited sources that describe this very thing.

 

[npetreley]

That comparison is just ludicrous. There it is not the amount of alcohol that is even in question. It is the symbolism, as I previously explained. To use wine, alcoholic, and thus leavened to represent the holy blood and body of Christ is blasphemous. His body and blood saw no corruption.

It's quite the opposite. The grape juice in NT times had bacteria in it, just as natural grape juice today would have (that's what yeast is - bacteria). They didn't "leaven" the grape juice like people leaven bread. It already had both the sugars and bacteria necessary for fermentation. The process of fermentation eventually kills off the bacteria with alcohol. In the end, the alcohol in wine purifies the grape juice from the bacteria. Until Welch came up with an alternate way of making grape juice, the corrupt drink was always grape juice. The pure drink would be wine. So if anything is blasphemous because it has leaven (that is, bacteria), it is natural grape juice (not the purified Welches, which purifies it another way).

 

[npetreley]

Here's the key point in the history of Welch's grape juice.

http://www.welchs.com/company/company_history.html

1869 Dr. Thomas Bramwell Welch, a physician and dentist by profession, successfully pasteurizes Concord grape juice to produce an "unfermented sacramental wine" for fellow parishioners at his church in Vineland, N.J., where he is communion steward. His achievement marks the beginning of the processed fruit juice industry.

Now - why do you suppose they had to pasteurize the grape juice in order to make "unfermented scaramental wine"? Bingo. Because it had bacteria in it, and they wanted a way to kill the bacteria that didn't involve fermentation and produce alcohol.

So in order for what you say about corruption to be true, then everyone pre-1869 was guilty of blasphemy if they drank grape juice for communion instead of wine.

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

you can continue to believe the lies about grape juice.

I choose to believe the Word of God. Jesus would not have created, drank, or condoned the drinking of an alcoholic beverage.

 

[npetreley]

you can continue to believe the lies about grape juice.

The lies about grape juice? What lies are those? Welch lied about having to pasteurize grape juice to kill the bacteria? Are we in store for a great expose about how Welch deceived millions since 1869 by pretending to pasteurize juice that is naturally bacteria-free? Call the National Enquirer!

 

[DHK]

It's quite the opposite. The grape juice in NT times had bacteria in it, just as natural grape juice today would have (that's what yeast is - bacteria). They didn't "leaven" the grape juice like people leaven bread. It already had both the sugars and bacteria necessary for fermentation. The process of fermentation eventually kills off the bacteria with alcohol. In the end, the alcohol in wine purifies the grape juice from the bacteria. Until Welch came up with an alternate way of making grape juice, the corrupt drink was always grape juice. The pure drink would be wine. So if anything is blasphemous because it has leaven (that is, bacteria), it is natural grape juice (not the purified Welches, which purifies it another way).

You really have things twisted around to suit your own system of belief.
#1. The people of NT times did not study cellular biology, molecular biology, etc.
#2. The crushed grapes from the vine yielded grape juice which, of course, was totally unfermented and often referred to as "new wine."
"3 Upon observation, when the grape juice began to ferment "it turned itself aright," the Jews were told not even to look at it, much less to drink it. The fermentation process was now in full operation. The new grape juice could not intoxicate anyone. But now the corrupt leaven had done its work. The fermentation had begun to turn the grape juice to wine. It was becoming potent, intoxicating and able to make one drunk. It was full of leaven (fermentation or yeast). It was symbolic of corruption, evil. This would never be used in the elements of the Lord's Table. Again it is blasphemous to do so. Corruption cannot represent that which is holy.

 

[Snitzelhoff]

#2. The crushed grapes from the vine yielded grape juice which, of course, was totally unfermented and often referred to as "new wine."

"New wine"? Isn't that the stuff the crowds thought the Apostles were drunk on in Acts 2?

Interesting. Guess someone forgot to tell them that you can't get drunk on new wine.

Michael

 

[Zenas]

HBSMN, if you choose to believe the Bible (and I truly believe you do), how do you explain passages such as Ecclesiastes 9:7 (Go thy way, eat thy bread with joy, and drink thy wine with a merry heart; for God now accepteth thy works.)? Or Psalms 104:15 (And wine that maketh glad the heart of man, and oil to make his face to shine, and bread which strengtheneth man's heart.)?

Please advise; I don't want to seem argumentive and I hope you can shed some light on these passages.

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

Zenas,

Neither of those passages is speaking of an alcoholic wine. Context would show that. Plus comparing scripture with Scripture.

Why would God tell one to drink the very thing He says is the poison of dragons?

The answer is He would not.

The wine that is fermented is called the poison of dragons (Deut. 32:33). It biteth like a serpent and stingeth like an adder (Prov. 23:32).

The wine that maketh the heart glad is not fermented. It does not bite, nor sting. It does not cause one to have redness of eyes (Prov. 23:29) or make them senseless to pain when one beats them up (Prov. 23:35).

 

[npetreley]

It was full of leaven (fermentation or yeast). It was symbolic of corruption, evil. This would never be used in the elements of the Lord's Table. Again it is blasphemous to do so. Corruption cannot represent that which is holy.

Blasphemous is a strong word. Are you really sure you want to use it? If so, you blaspheme, not me, because you think that wine containing bacteria (leaven) is pure, and purified wine is unclean. Even Welch understood the difference, which is why he attempted to purify the grape juice in some way other than that which produced alcohol.

Plus, you're going to have to paint with a wide brush -- you are accusing most churches of all denominations up until about the mid 1800s of blasphemy. They weren't serving Welch's grape juice, I can assure you that.

Most important, fermented wine is NOT full of leaven. That's the whole point. The bacteria/leaven eats sugar and produces alcohol as a by-product. It's a self-destructive process because once the alcohol gets to a certain concentration, it kills off the leaven and stops the process of fermentation. Fermentation is gone. It's over. Kaput. Done. There's nothing left to ferment. It's all dead. That's why the wine has become pure of any leaven.

No, the people of the NT didn't study microbiology. They didn't need to. God knows all. Plus, the correlation is fairly obvious since you can get sick from grape juice that simply goes bad due to the bacteria. But you won't get sick from fermented wine because the bacteria is dead and the alcohol prevents any other bacteria from growing. That's probably why they used to combine wine with water. That put enough alcohol in the water to kill off some of the bad stuff, but not enough to get drunk.

So while the people of the NT didn't study microbiology, you should study it if you think fermented wine is full of leaven.

FINALLY: Puritan Increase Mather said, "Drink is in itself a good creature of God, and to be received with thankfulness, but the abuse of drink is from Satan; the wine is from God, but the drunkard is from the Devil."

From the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith: The Lord Jesus hath, in this ordinance, appointed his ministers to pray, and bless the elements of bread and wine, and thereby to set them apart from a common to a holy use, and to take and break the bread; to take the cup, and, they communicating also themselves, to give both to the communicants.

Please don't tell me that in 1689 they used the word wine but meant grape juice. Were all those nasty Baptists blasphemers? Even the Anabaptists served wine.

By the way, I'm pretty shocked that a moderator of these boards would be so loose with the claim of blasphemy. I thought that was the sort of thing you were supposed to prevent others from doing.

 

[DHK]

"New wine"? Isn't that the stuff the crowds thought the Apostles were drunk on in Acts 2?

Interesting. Guess someone forgot to tell them that you can't get drunk on new wine.

Michael

#1. Here is what Strong says about the word that is used here:

gleukoV gleukos glyoo'-kos

akin to 1099; sweet wine, i.e. (properly) must (fresh juice), but used of the more saccharine (and therefore highly inebriating) fermented wine:--new wine. (Strong’s)

It indeed was an intoxicating beverage. As usual, words are defined by context.


However, the context denotes far more than that. It was ridicule and fase accusations that were being thrown at the disciples. See what Gill has to say about this situation:

these men are full of new wine; the Syriac, version adds, "and are drunk"; a very foolish and impertinent cavil this; there was, at this time of the year, no new wine, just pressed, or in the fat; and if there had been any, and they were full of it, it could never have furnished them with a faculty of speaking with many tongues; men generally lose their tongues by intemperance. They were indeed filled with wine, but not with wine, the juice of the grape, either new or old; but with spiritual wine, with the gifts of the Spirit of God, by which they spake with divers tongues. They might hope this insinuation, that they were drunk with wine, would take and be received, since it was a feasting time, the feast of Pentecost; though, as Peter afterwards observes; it was too early in the day to imagine this to be their case.

 

[DHK]

Blasphemous is a strong word. Are you really sure you want to use it? If so, you blaspheme, not me, because you think that wine containing bacteria (leaven) is pure, and purified wine is unclean. Even Welch understood the difference, which is why he attempted to purify the grape juice in some way other than that which produced alcohol.

Every time you take a drink of water you probably swallow some bacteria of one kind or another. You come in contact with bacteria in the air, on surfaces that we touch, everywhere. To equate fermentation with bacteria in general is ludicrous. In wine, it is yeast. It is from a culture, not one bacteria. Again, as I said before, the NT peoples were not molecular scientists. They came to conclusions based on what they saw and observed. They didn't use microscopes. Yes blasphemous is a strong word. It is blasphemous to equate the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ to corruption and sin. I stand by my statement.

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

And I join in with DHK on this. It is nothing short of blasphemous to compare the blood of my Lord and Savior to that which is corrupt.

 

[npetreley]

Every time you take a drink of water you probably swallow some bacteria of one kind or another. You come in contact with bacteria in the air, on surfaces that we touch, everywhere. To equate fermentation with bacteria in general is ludicrous. In wine, it is yeast. It is from a culture, not one bacteria. Again, as I said before, the NT peoples were not molecular scientists. They came to conclusions based on what they saw and observed. They didn't use microscopes.

What do you think a culture is? When you get a throat culture to see if you have strep, what do you think they're doing? They're growing a sample of the bacteria from your throat to see if it's strep. Strep IS a bacteria. A culture is deliberately grown bacteria.

What do you think yeast is? It is a NATURALLY occuring fungus or bacteria. Don't think so? Leave out a cup of milk and watch it turn to a disgusting variant of yogurt (not one you'd want to eat). Heck, in Texas, that only takes about a day, because we're the mold capital of the United States.

Grapes on the vine are literally covered in yeast and mold. In fact, some variants of the mold are called "noble rot" because they produce the best flavor. That's where the yeast came from in wine-making. These days, some wine-makers will use chemicals to kill all the existing yeast and mold on the grapes and then wait until the chemicals lose their potency, after which they add their own yeast for predictable flavor. But this is a recent practice meant to create a consistent flavor in wines. It is not a necessary step in order to make wine, since there's plenty of yeast on the grapes.

DID YOU CATCH THAT? Yeast on the grapes. That means grape juice is filled with yeast - the symbol of corruption. That's why it has to be pasturized if you don't want to make wine from it.

One other note: I should have added that fermentation can stop in two ways. Either the alcohol will kill off the yeast, or the yeast will run out of sugar. In the latter case, you get a dry wine that will likely perish more quickly. Some winemakers will add sugar to those wines and let the process finish in order to end up with a yeast-free sweet wine.

Yes blasphemous is a strong word. It is blasphemous to equate the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ to corruption and sin. I stand by my statement.

Then so be it. Let it be known that St. DHK the pure has called everyone who has ever agreed to the 1689 London Baptist Confession a blasphemer.