Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
Exactly
-
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!
Liberty - not worth supporting
- Thread starter agedman
- Start date
Quite obvious that this was in a Trump office, as all of the pictures are magazine covers. You have really outed yourself lately as a Trump detractor whenever possible. But I notice you are never against any financial benefits that may come your way because of Trump policies. Will you vote for him in 20?
The man is not infallible. I call 'em as I see them.
Unless he does something incredibly stupid (even for him), yes, I will likely vote for him.
Well, it's unfortunate that he's giving a thumb's up next to a framed photo of a Playboy magazine cover. I don't see how the photo of the three of them puts Trump's politics as the subject matter.
I was going to stay out of this, but your are just wrong. And it is damagingly wrong.
He demonstrated such by refusing the first offering of drink upon the cross - it was a mixed cocktail.
2nd. You are considering that intoxicants of today are the same as in the Bible, they were not. History teaches that the wine would become bitter and vinegar which was used for healing, cleaning, water purification...
3rd. two verses: "Give strong drink to the one who is perishing, and wine to those in bitter distress;"
"Take a little wine for your stomach's sake"
Each of these show that medicinal use. In a time when modern medications were not available, wine was used to relieve pain, to aid in digestion, and to purge the body of parasites.
4th. Do not assume the Lord drank wine, just because his enemies made that claim. The believers are always accused by the enemy of things that are untrue.
5th. Do not assume the Lord made an intoxicant. Evidence by the questions raised indicate that it was as fresh squeezed (best tasting) and not something that had sat around in the heat for weeks.
6th. Do not assume that centuries of believers provide permission for consumption of an intoxicant, today. There is no reason for consumption without medical advice, and a person is rather short sighted in allowing any place for the enemy to bring destruction. Many pastors have fallen into sin because of allowing a "permitted" rather than abstaining from EVEN THE APPEARANCE of evil.
7th. Intoxicants are presented as having personification that are ungodly. "Wine Is a mocker. Strong drink IS raging." Doesn't say it "might become, or may be." It says, "Fools are deceived by it." Therefore, one who consumes an intoxicant outside of medicinal reasons deceived fools.
Now, I will not attend to this subject in this thread anymore.
I write this brief so that you recognize that there are certain Biblical principles not to be ignored.
At this point the reader will make up their own mind as to what is the best for their own life of devotion to the Lord.
The question must be answered when concerning this topic: How can one devote their whole heart (emotional), mind (intellect), soul (flesh) and strength (the life and living) 100 % to God, if even the slightest molecule is given over to an intoxicant (any form) that is not for medicinal use?
One other point. Do not assume one can justify one sin by pointing to another sin. Usually this is done when one points to gluttony, language, manner of conduct... and then excuses consumption of an intoxicant. Even a child knows that is wrong.
1st. There is no way that the Redeemer could have remain pure and consumed even a single drop of an intoxicant. Not possible.
He demonstrated such by refusing the first offering of drink upon the cross - it was a mixed cocktail.
2nd. You are considering that intoxicants of today are the same as in the Bible, they were not. History teaches that the wine would become bitter and vinegar which was used for healing, cleaning, water purification...
3rd. two verses: "Give strong drink to the one who is perishing, and wine to those in bitter distress;"
"Take a little wine for your stomach's sake"
Each of these show that medicinal use. In a time when modern medications were not available, wine was used to relieve pain, to aid in digestion, and to purge the body of parasites.
4th. Do not assume the Lord drank wine, just because his enemies made that claim. The believers are always accused by the enemy of things that are untrue.
5th. Do not assume the Lord made an intoxicant. Evidence by the questions raised indicate that it was as fresh squeezed (best tasting) and not something that had sat around in the heat for weeks.
6th. Do not assume that centuries of believers provide permission for consumption of an intoxicant, today. There is no reason for consumption without medical advice, and a person is rather short sighted in allowing any place for the enemy to bring destruction. Many pastors have fallen into sin because of allowing a "permitted" rather than abstaining from EVEN THE APPEARANCE of evil.
7th. Intoxicants are presented as having personification that are ungodly. "Wine Is a mocker. Strong drink IS raging." Doesn't say it "might become, or may be." It says, "Fools are deceived by it." Therefore, one who consumes an intoxicant outside of medicinal reasons deceived fools.
Now, I will not attend to this subject in this thread anymore.
I write this brief so that you recognize that there are certain Biblical principles not to be ignored.
At this point the reader will make up their own mind as to what is the best for their own life of devotion to the Lord.
The question must be answered when concerning this topic: How can one devote their whole heart (emotional), mind (intellect), soul (flesh) and strength (the life and living) 100 % to God, if even the slightest molecule is given over to an intoxicant (any form) that is not for medicinal use?
One other point. Do not assume one can justify one sin by pointing to another sin. Usually this is done when one points to gluttony, language, manner of conduct... and then excuses consumption of an intoxicant. Even a child knows that is wrong.
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
Well the magazine cover is obviously not the subject matter. What other relationship does Falwell have with Trump outside of politics? He supports his politics, not his lifestyles.
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
Except it says he did. There is nothing that suggests intoxicant made him impure. Where is your reference for that?
What do you think he served at the last supper?
Where does it say fresh squeezed?
There is nothing biblical about your position, just a preconceived idea.
I will answer again, though I should not, because your statements do not reflect Scripture authority.
What is the purpose of an intoxicant? Is it not to toxify? Do you really want to present that the Redeemer had become toxic?
And there is absolutely NOT a single verse that presents the Redeemer EVER consumed an intoxicant.
Does it really matter? The Scriptures do NOT state it was an intoxicant. That is supper imposed upon the Scriptures in order for people to make excuse for their own living.
No It says his enemies ACCUSED him. Big difference.
What is the purpose of an intoxicant? Is it not to toxify? Do you really want to present that the Redeemer had become toxic?
And there is absolutely NOT a single verse that presents the Redeemer EVER consumed an intoxicant.
Does it really matter? The Scriptures do NOT state it was an intoxicant. That is supper imposed upon the Scriptures in order for people to make excuse for their own living.
does it say fresh squeezed?
Why would you need to ask that unless you had no real understanding of the history and making of wine in the ancients. Clue. Often the cup bearing servant would literally squeeze in the presence of the king the grapes. It assured poison was not added. The cup bearer would also often take a small sip if the king was suspicious.
But these are mere anecdotal to the truth.
You have absolutely less support for that served being an intoxicant than I do holding the principle (as exampled by Christ on the cross refusal to take an intoxicant) that Christ never would consume even the slightest element in which the sole basic intent was to toxify. Not a single molecule of the earthly form of the Lord could be presented as cared and impure. Do you not remember that even before the lambs slain, they were stored up for observation to verify purification?
It is highly unfortunate that you have taken that view. How many Scriptures did I refer to in the post?
Was there anything that you can refute those Scriptures teach?
No, the problem is not my preconceptions, but your own.
But it is of no bother to me, personally. I am far to old to be other than one who points out there is another view that is perhaps more rightly aligned with the presentation of Scriptures.
And beside, even if you became understanding that the view I presented was valid, history shows that such does not change the core thinking that somehow the Redeemer's blood had been polluted by a certain level of intoxicant when I was slathered all over for the sin of humankind.
Perhaps that is why some hold to limited blood shed only for the redeemed. There wasn't enough pure for everyone else.
On the cross, Jesus turned down vinegar mixed with gall, neither are alcohol. The gall may have been a poison designed to lesson Christ's suffering. Jesus also turned town wine mixed with myrrh, both have a pain-killing effect, which would be the reason Jesus turned it down, so as not to minimize his suffering on the cross.
The Bible doesn't say Jesus turned down any drink because it had wine in it -- that is your own view being imposed on the Bible. And, even if Jesus turned down wine on the cross because it is wine, it could have been situation specific, for the reason already given.
Ha! So, you quote a verse that says it was okay for Jesus to drink wine on the cross, give strong drink to the one who is perishing and wine to those in bitter distress.
Use a little wine for your stomach's sake, for reasons that applied to practically everyone back in the day? And, today, a glass of wine is a nice way to unstress after a day of work, and maybe even to extend your life. Besides, a medical recommendation to drink is not in the least a criticism of non-medical drinking.
That is such such a sad and inexcusable misrepresentation of scripture. Jesus didn't say they claimed he drank, Jesus himself claimed he drank.
That is such a sad misrepresentation of reality. Wine, not grape juice, is served at wedding parties. And, your reasoning is nonsense. if your scenario were true, instead of commenting about the oddity of saving the best for last (an oddity if real wine), the comment would have been where did you get fresh juice out of season. And, it might have also been asked why did you serve your important guests second-rate juice when you had better stuff.
There's no appearance of evil with drinking. But, there is an appearance of evil in the self-righteousness of the Pharisees for condemning drinking, even ridiculing the Lord for his professed alcohol consumption.
Hit and run.
Please show me in scripture where an intoxicant automatically makes one impure.
Don't need to.
When you can't show me a single Scripture that it doesn't.
"Wine IS a mocker, Strong drink IS raging..."
Where in the Scriptures do you find "pure" mockers, and where the Scriptures present that raging is righteousness?
But this thread isn't about intoxicants.
I merely was pointing out to a poster another view in which it was not as he posted, something approved and consumed by the Redeemer.
This is a logical fallacy known as the "burden of proof fallacy".
OK, I said I would leave the subject of intoxicants, that the thread not be derailed.
May this side train end.
The Falwell guy is obviously a liar, he is also one who flaunts his position as above the rules, and is being exposed.
I think I will leave it at that, for now.
Others have been warned.
Back in the day, I warned about Hyles. Few listened, those that did and investigated faced sever rebuke.
Before that, I warned about Billy Graham. Fewer listened, and those that did have been mocked, rebuked and isolated.
I saw the same character in Falwell Sr, and even fewer listened. After all, he was the leader of the "moral" majority.
So, until next time.
May this side train end.
The Falwell guy is obviously a liar, he is also one who flaunts his position as above the rules, and is being exposed.
I think I will leave it at that, for now.
Others have been warned.
Back in the day, I warned about Hyles. Few listened, those that did and investigated faced sever rebuke.
Before that, I warned about Billy Graham. Fewer listened, and those that did have been mocked, rebuked and isolated.
I saw the same character in Falwell Sr, and even fewer listened. After all, he was the leader of the "moral" majority.
So, until next time.
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
This is utter nonsense.
Do kids have the same rules as their parents and vice versa?
You are reading a lot into things. Drinking wine does not make you toxic.
It states it was wine. Wine is fermented. It was not grape juice as you try to portray.
Flaunts his position above the rules? Where do the rules say that a faculty member cannot consume alcohol? I've found nothing that says that. Students yes but students and faculty are not the same thing.
Do kids have the same rules as their parents and vice versa?
I would say drinking is the impetus for fights... and women (another subject).
Exactly.
It's along the same lines as, "you can't show me one scripture that says the apostles weren't gay".
I saw 99 fights over pool for every 1 over a woman.
Add alcohol to the equation
There was always plenty flowing.
Yea, I know