Is Drinking, Smoking, and Dipping a Sin

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

DHK,

Isn't it against the rules to confuse him with the truth?

 

[Snitzelhoff]

And yes there was an element of mercy even in the crucifixion. The custom was to break the legs of "criminal" to expedite the death of the one being crucifiying so that he might not endure suffering for a longer period of time.

Not even getting into the middle of the alcohol debate, but I found this statement interesting; I don't think this had a thing to do with mercy toward the condemned, but with appeasing the Jews who didn't want people hanging on a cross during the Sabbath. At least that's what I gathered from Scripture.

Michael

 

[webdog]

The Roman soldiers, to a larged degree, were egged on by the Pharisees. It ought to be remembered that it was the Jews that cried out: "Crucify Him! Crucify Him! The other thieves, crucified on either side of Christ did not endure all the public torment and ridicule that Christ did. The Jews brought the added suffering and ridicule to his crucifixion.
And yes there was an element of mercy even in the crucifixion. The custom was to break the legs of "criminal" to expedite the death of the one being crucifiying so that he might not endure suffering for a longer period of time. But when they came to Jesus they saw that he was dead already, thus they didn't have to break his legs. The myrrh was another element of mercy to deaden their senses to pain. Not all the soldiers were without a conscience. The centurion confessed:

Mark 15:39 And when the centurion, which stood over against him, saw that he so cried out, and gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this man was the Son of God.

The Jews said to crucify Him...the Romans took it upon themselves to cause massive torture above and beyond that.
If you think their legs were broken out of "mercy", you really need to brush up on your history of the Romans and crucifiction. There was no mercy involved whatsoever with any part of it. The myrrh being an act of mercy is only your opionion, and a weak one at that.

 

[webdog]

DHK,

Isn't it against the rules to confuse him with the truth?

I'm not confused in the least. Try again.

 

[Accountable]

His Blood Spoke My Name,

Why have you chosen to ignore a very relevent question?

Most enjoy arguing against smoking and drinking but get uneasy when dealing with gluteny and damaging foods.

Again I ask, if it is wrong to smoke because of the high risk of cancer, would it not be equally wrong to eat foods with pesticieds and refined sugars, etc?


I wait for your reply.

 

[dan e.]

keep waiting.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

His Blood Spoke My Name,

Why have you chosen to ignore a very relevent question?

Most enjoy arguing against smoking and drinking but get uneasy when dealing with gluteny and damaging foods.

Again I ask, if it is wrong to smoke because of the high risk of cancer, would it not be equally wrong to eat foods with pesticieds and refined sugars, etc?


I wait for your reply.

HBSMN had a post in another thread on this very board, from a N.Y. gossip page, ignoring what scripture says about that subject. I guess gossip is OK, as long as you don't do it over a beer.

I think people should read their bibles, instead of waving it around.

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

His Blood Spoke My Name,

Why have you chosen to ignore a very relevent question?

Most enjoy arguing against smoking and drinking but get uneasy when dealing with gluteny and damaging foods.

Again I ask, if it is wrong to smoke because of the high risk of cancer, would it not be equally wrong to eat foods with pesticieds and refined sugars, etc?


I wait for your reply.

Accountable? You should already know the answer to that. That is why I did not answer the foolish question.

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

Curtis,

That was an article that I found when searching for news. It said the same thing as the news pages did, so it seems that you are pointing fingers at yourself as well.

I have seen posts by you in the news section. If news is gossip, you are guilty of gossip as well.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

So, gossip is OK ?

And, news isn't gossip, gossip isn't news.


I have agreed with you on other threads, and I think you have a genuine love for the Lord, but I also think you are kind of hypocritical, as well.

Maybe I shouldn't have posted that, but I see a "do as I say, not as I do" attitude from you.

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

Curtis...

Now you have me wondering Bro.

I just looked up the word that many say means 'gossip' in the Greek. That word, is tale-bearer' Here is what I found.

1980 %l;h' halak {haw-lak'}
Meaning: 1) to go, walk, come 1a) (Qal) 1a1) to go, walk, come, depart, proceed, move, go away 1a2) to die, live, manner of life (fig.) 1b) (Piel) 1b1) to walk 1b2) to walk (fig.) 1c) (Hithpael) 1c1) to traverse 1c2) to walk about 1d) (Niphal) to lead, bring, lead away, carry, cause to walk
Origin: akin to 03212, a primitive root; TWOT - 498; v
Usage: AV - go 217, walk 156, come 16, ...away 7, ...along 6, misc 98; 500

08802 Stem - Qal (See 08851) Mood - Participle Active (See 08814) Count - 5386

7400 lykir' rakiyl {raw-keel'}
Meaning: 1) slander, slanderer, tale bearer, informer
Origin: from 07402 a scandal-monger (as travelling about); TWOT - 2165b; n m
Usage: AV - slander 2, talebearer 2, talebearer + 01980 1, carry tales 1; 6

Matthew Henry Notes: Verses: 12- 13
I. Silence is here recommended as an instance of true friendship, and a preservative of it, and therefore an evidence, 1. Of wisdom: A man of understanding, that has rule over his own spirit, if he be provoked, holds his peace, that he may neither give vent to his passion nor kindle the passion of others by any opprobrious language or peevish reflections. 2. Of sincerity: He that is of a faithful spirit, that is true, not only to his own promise, but to the interest of his friend, conceals every matter which, if divulged, may turn to the prejudice of his neighbour.
II. This prudent friendly concealment is here opposed to two very bad vices of the tongue:- 1. Speaking scornfully of a man to his face: He that is void of wisdom discovers his folly by this; he despises his neighbour, calls him Raca, and Thou fool, upon the least provocation, and tramples upon him as not worthy to be set with the dogs of his flock. He undervalues himself who thus undervalues one that is made of the same mould. 2. Speaking spitefully of a man behind his back: A tale-bearer, that carries all the stories he can pick up, true or false, from house to house, to make mischief and sow discord, reveals secrets which he has been entrusted with, and so breaks the laws, and forfeits all the privileges, of friendship and conversation.

What I find interesting is this... the word gossip is not mentioned at all.

Oh, one may try to apply the last paragraph to my posting that link in the other thread, but that does not work. It was News. Nothing given to me in confidence and certainly not secret.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Gee, it looked to me like you were gleeful about her plight.

But I would like to see you answer Accountable's question. I do apologize for going off topic.

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

Accountable's question was a foolish question. That is why I refused to answer it.

Of course it is wrong to put things into your body that you know could ultimately destroy it.

As I have said over and over, we are to be faithful stewards over all that God has entrusted us with... that includes the body.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

His point, and mine, is this habit of focusing on the drinking, and leaving gluttony alone. I know more grossly overweight pastors than alchoholic ones. But people focus on drinking. It seems very hypocritical.

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

But this is not a thread about different foods that poison the body, this thread is about drinking, smoking and dipping.

If Accountable wants to go off into the food smokescreen to try to make drinking acceptable, it won't work.

Accountable, go start a thread on food.

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

Gee, it looked to me like you were gleeful about her plight.

I was not gleeful about her plight, Curtis. Someone had asked about stories concerning her plight, I provided links I found. No joy in that.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

But this is not a thread about different foods that poison the body, this thread is about drinking, smoking and dipping.

If Accountable wants to go off into the food smokescreen to try to make drinking acceptable, it won't work.

Accountable, go start a thread on food.

Are you a moderator, now ?

 

[dan e.]

allow me to suggest this again.

There is no way to demonstrate that "nepho" means to strictly abstain from alcohol in all contexts. Anyone who simply says that is what it means is running off personal preference and not biblical evidence. There may be plenty of evidence to suggest it is wise to avoid alcohol, but not that the Bible strictly forbids any consumption of it. The N.T. usage of that word in its contexts is not talking about taking a drink, but remaining sober (ie. not drunk), calm, and collected in your spirit. So please, no more blanket statements such as "the Bible clearly forbids alcohol because it says nepho 4 times". It is silly.

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

In the same respect, it is foolish to disregard 'abstain from wine' altogether. It is written as a Greek definition of the word 'nepho'.

It has to mean it in at least one of those instances, else it would not have been put in as a definition for nepho.

 

[DHK]

The Jews said to crucify Him...the Romans took it upon themselves to cause massive torture above and beyond that.
If you think their legs were broken out of "mercy", you really need to brush up on your history of the Romans and crucifiction. There was no mercy involved whatsoever with any part of it. The myrrh being an act of mercy is only your opionion, and a weak one at that.

First, the fact that myrrh was used as a drug to dull the senses, just as a modern pain killer is fact, not fiction. If you want to think green is red you may call it that. But green is not red no mattter how much you think it is. And myrrh is a drug to dull the senses to pain, no matter how much you may deny this fact.

Here are the facts that the gospels give:

The First time Jesus was offered viegar:
Matthew 27:34 They gave him vinegar to drink mingled with gall: and when he had tasted thereof, he would not drink.

Mark 15:23 And they gave him to drink wine mingled with myrrh: but he received it not.

The Second time Jesus was offered vinegar

Matthew 27:48 And straightway one of them ran, and took a spunge, and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink.

Mark 15:36 And one ran and filled a spunge full of vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink, saying, Let alone; let us see whether Elias will come to take him down.

John 19:29-30 Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a spunge with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop, and put it to his mouth. When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.
John 19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

The breaking of the legs

John 19:31-34 The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him. But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs: But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.

The Custom of breaking the legs

Their legs might be broken. To hasten their death. The effect of this, while they were suspended on the cross, would be to increase their pain by the act of breaking them, and to deprive their body of the support which it received from the feet, and to throw the whole weight on the hands. By this increased torment their lives were soon ended. Lactantius says that this was commonly done by the Romans to persons who were crucified. The common period to which persons crucified would live was several days. To compensate for those lingering agonies, so that the full amount of suffering might be endure, they increased their sufferings by breaking their limbs, and thus hastening their death. (Barnes)