• 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!

Proverbs 23:31

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

annsni

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
rbell said:
DHK and others,

Q: "does alcohol cook out of food?"
A: well...not completely. Depends.

SOURCE: FOOD NETWORK.COM
Click to expand...

That is correct. It takes much longer for the alcohol to mostly cook out than the few minutes that many dishes are cooked. But cooked properly, we can safely assume that a dish with a 1/2 cup of alcohol that's cooked for a while in an open pot on a high flame will burn off the majority of the alcohol. I do not feel badly at all to cook with alcohol and serve it to my children. I know that I cook stuff for long enough to cook it down enough that it's not going to be an issue with them.
 
H

His Blood Spoke My Name

New Member
R

Ransom

Active Member
Don't you know God's Word says 'Look thou not'?

No, it says to "look thou not" when it is red. (How would you know?)

And that God's Word says it is the poison of dragons and venom of asps?

Can you find a credible zoologist to confirm this?
 
C

Charles Meadows

New Member
I have God's Word. I do not doubt His Word as many who claim to be His apparently do.

You also don't respect enough to take it at its word either - like when it says that Jesus made wine.

And that God's Word says it is the poison of dragons and venom of asps?

According to your logic then grape juice would be the venom of asps!

Don't misunderstand me - I respect your opinion. But I do not respect your notion that you can with your "spiritual eyes" overrule what the Bible actually says - like when it says that Jesus made wine. The fact that you want the Bible to be completely anti-alcohol does not justify your forced interpretation. You may mean well - but this is the same tactic used by the liberals to justify their twisted interpretations.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
H

His Blood Spoke My Name

New Member
Charles,

I take God's Word for what it says. When rightly divided, one can see that the wine Jesus created could not have been alcoholic. When not rightly divided, well, it leads to discussions such as these.

Your statement about me overruling what the Bible says cannot be farther from the truth. I have given scripture to prove the notion that Jesus created alcoholic wine is preposterous and downright ignorance of the Word of God and Who Jesus Christ was.
 
C

Charles Meadows

New Member
Let me show you why your interpretation scheme is wrong.

1 Cor 6:9 says that male prostitution is wrong and Rom 1:26-27 says that male sex for pleasure's sake is wrong. But nowehere does it say that male-male sex between monogamous lovers is wrong. Therefore given this and the fact that Jesus said, "judge not" we can deduce that homosexual sex in the context of a loving family relationship is OK.

This is how people use their own desires to twist scripture.

You have done it in a well-meaning way - but you twisted scripture nonetheless.

John 2:9 says that Jesus made water into wine. There is no difference in thsi word and the word used in a bad sense.

So either the Bible is wrong or you are taking liberty with verses, validating your own "rightly divided" interpretation over the literal sense of the passage.
 
H

His Blood Spoke My Name

New Member
Charles Meadows said:
Let me show you why your interpretation scheme is wrong.

1 Cor 6:9 says that male prostitution is wrong and Rom 1:26-27 says that male sex for pleasure's sake is wrong. But nowehere does it say that male-male sex between monogamous lovers is wrong. Therefore given this and the fact that Jesus said, "judge not" we can deduce that homosexual sex in the context of a loving family relationship is OK.

This is how people use their own desires to twist scripture.

You have done it in a well-meaning way - but you twisted scripture nonetheless.

John 2:9 says that Jesus made water into wine. There is no difference in thsi word and the word used in a bad sense.

So either the Bible is wrong or you are taking liberty with verses, validating your own "rightly divided" interpretation over the literal sense of the passage.
Click to expand...

My Bible tells me men chose to walk in darkness because their deeds are evil. Continue walking in darkness even though the light of the glorious gospel has been presented.
 
B

blackbird

Active Member
Charles Meadows said:
Let me show you why your interpretation scheme is wrong.

1 Cor 6:9 says that male prostitution is wrong and Rom 1:26-27 says that male sex for pleasure's sake is wrong. But nowehere does it say that male-male sex between monogamous lovers is wrong. Therefore given this and the fact that Jesus said, "judge not" we can deduce that homosexual sex in the context of a loving family relationship is OK.

This is how people use their own desires to twist scripture.

You have done it in a well-meaning way - but you twisted scripture nonetheless.

John 2:9 says that Jesus made water into wine. There is no difference in thsi word and the word used in a bad sense.

So either the Bible is wrong or you are taking liberty with verses, validating your own "rightly divided" interpretation over the literal sense of the passage.
Click to expand...

Contrary to your statement above----it is an abomination and a perversion before Almighty God for two men to lie together(have sex) as they would with womankind----NT says--they burn in their flesh toward each other.

The statement "Nowhere does it say that male/male sex between monogomous lovers is wrong"---is a lie.

Bro. David
 
H

His Blood Spoke My Name

New Member
KJV Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Does not say outside of a certain relationship, it says 'Thou shalt not'.

So, as Brother David pointed out, your analogy is wrong.

Also, although Jesus did say 'Judge not, lest ye be judged,' He also said 'Judge righteous judgnemt.'
 
Last edited by a moderator:
T

tinytim

<img src =/tim2.jpg>
Guys, Charles presented an analogy.. he was not condoning homosexuality!

He gave an example of how people read into scripture what they want in there.... just like calling wine, juice.

It is not there, either it is wine, or it is not....

The bible says wine... good enough for me.
 
H

His Blood Spoke My Name

New Member
tim,

I have not said it was not wine. As a matter of fact, just a couple posts up, I stated 'when Jesus created that wine'.

The thing is, that wine was not, nor could it have been fermented. If it was, then Jesus could not have been the pure sacrifice that was to pay for the sins of the world.

If it were fermented, He would have been putting a stumbling block in someone's path. They all had already drank sufficiently enough to drain the wine cellar before Jesus performed that first miracle.

He would have been causing someone to stumble for sure.

The 'wine' was unfermented
 
C

Charles Meadows

New Member
The statement "Nowhere does it say that male/male sex between monogomous lovers is wrong"---is a lie.

Bro. David

You're darn right it is! This is an example of flagrant twisting of scripture!

Just as is the insinuation that the wine at Cana could not have been real wine - when the word says, "wine" - which we all know does not mean grape juice. Is this notn the same word the Bible uses in the verses condemning excess alcohol? Or is that grape juice too?

Both are twisting of scripture. The first is a liberal twist, the second a fundy twist - but both are alteration of the word of God and are abomination.
 
H

His Blood Spoke My Name

New Member
Charles, it is not a twisting of Scripture. Wine (yayin, oinos) whether you, or anyone else for that matter,want to believe it, is a generic term and can mean both fermented or unfermented depending on the context.

And to say the Son of God made and gave something to others that could cause someone to get drunk, for someone to stumble, is a downright lie
 
Last edited by a moderator:
S

standingfirminChrist

New Member
Ok, for the sake of the argument, lets say the wine at the wedding feast was alcoholic (moderation advocates willl like that).

The guests had already drank all the wine that was in the house, so they were well on their way to drunkenness. Jesus comes along and makes more alcoholic wine, adding to their drunkenness.

Sound like a loving Savior? One who said no drunkard will inherit the kingdom of God is adding to men's drunkenness?

I think not!
 
H

Helen

<img src =/Helen2.gif>
I think I can see another problem here. The wedding feast was a week-long celebration. People would come from great distances sometimes and because of a lack of planes, trains, and automobiles, they would be hosted for some time and not return the same day as the wedding.

Today there is still a remnant of that custom, as I found here:

In contrast to a non-Jewish custom, in which the bride and groom take off to some exotic honeymoon location, Jewish custom dictates that the couple begin their new life together in their community.
For seven consecutive evenings following the wedding, it is customary that friends or relatives host festive meals in their honor. The act of feasting recalls the "seven-day celebration" after the marriage of Jacob to Leah, while spending their days in prayer, learning Torah and performing mitzvos in order to give the "new house in Israel" a solid foundation in G-d's ways of holiness.
from http://www.jewish-history.com/minhag.htm

You may also be interested in the following regarding the historical setting of the wedding at Cana and its story in John 2:

Verse 3 presents a serious problem in the first century Jewish life. Jewish
weddings could last as long as one week so much wine was needed. Running out
of it was serious because it would bring shame to the bridegroom. It was so
serious that a law suit could result. The possibility of running out of wine is so
disturbing to Jesus’ mother that she says to her son, “They have no more wine”,
assuming that he can do something about this embarrassing problem.
from http://www.yorkminsterpark.com/teaching/pdf/The_First_Sign.pdf

You see, it was not a matter of everyone hanging around for one afternoon getting drunk or whatever. The wedding feast lasted a full week and the groom was expected to be able to provide for everyone for the entire week! Jesus probably created the wine toward the end of the week. It had nothing to do with people getting high or drunk, but with keeping the bridegroom out of legal trouble at the most and out of shame at the least. It was real wine. Grape juice would have been considered a travesty and a mockery of the wedding feast.
 
C

Charles Meadows

New Member
HBSMN and SFIC,

Ok.

I went to Kroger's after church tonight. They have wine AND grape juice. Care to guess how many bottles of stuff they have which say "wine" and are nonalcoholic? Or bottles which say "grape juice" but actually have alcohol?

The Bible says wine and that's what it means. Either you believe the Bible or you don't.
 
D

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Charles Meadows said:
HBSMN and SFIC,

Ok.

I went to Kroger's after church tonight. They have wine AND grape juice. Care to guess how many bottles of stuff they have which say "wine" and are nonalcoholic? Or bottles which say "grape juice" but actually have alcohol?

The Bible says wine and that's what it means. Either you believe the Bible or you don't.
Click to expand...
Charles do you also believe your Bible when as sure as you say:
"wine always means wine, and thus logically--
"bottle always means bottle."
Did the winos of that time go and buy a bottle of wine?
Where did they get their bottles from?
Bottle always means bottle doesn't it?
Your premise in all your arguments here seems to be--one word: one meaning.

Habakkuk 2:15 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!

Mark 2:22 And no man putteth new wine into old bottles: else the new wine doth burst the bottles, and the wine is spilled, and the bottles will be marred: but new wine must be put into new bottles.
DHK
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top