Proverbs 23:31

Really? Everyone who drinks a glass of wine is going to end up with an ulcer?

Silly Rabbit, don't you know most ulcers are caused by a bacteria? Folllow the linky:

http://www.umm.edu/patiented/articles/what_causes_peptic_ulcers_000019_2.htm

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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!

 

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.

 

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.

 

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