Strong Drink -The Baptist Truth

[Jerome]

You're deriving the formula of wine making from a recounting of a cupbearers dream?

No, I am asking a question.
Webdog claims "it wasn't consumed directly after it was squeezed."

Genesis 40:11
And Pharaoh's cup was in my hand: and I took the grapes, and pressed them into Pharaoh's cup, and I gave the cup into Pharaoh's hand.

Do you see any indication of a time lapse in the verse?

 

[Isaiah40:28]

No, I am asking a question.
Webdog claims "it wasn't consumed directly after it was squeezed."

Genesis 40:11
And Pharaoh's cup was in my hand: and I took the grapes, and pressed them into Pharaoh's cup, and I gave the cup into Pharaoh's hand.

Do you see any indication of a time lapse in the verse?

Well, considering it's dream, I don't think one should be reading into the story that much detail.
But anyways, carry on with the dream interpretations.

 

[Diggin in da Word]

No, I am asking a question.
Webdog claims "it wasn't consumed directly after it was squeezed."

Genesis 40:11
And Pharaoh's cup was in my hand: and I took the grapes, and pressed them into Pharaoh's cup, and I gave the cup into Pharaoh's hand.

Do you see any indication of a time lapse in the verse?

And I took, etc. From this we find that wine anciently was the mere expressed juice of the grape, without fermentation. The saky, or cup-bearer, took the bunch, pressed the juice into the cup, and instantly delivered it to his master.
pressed. Ge 49:11; Le 10:9; Pr 3:10

hand. Ge 40:21; 1Ki 10:5; 2Ch 9:4; Ne 1:11-2:1
Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

And I took the grapes and pressed them into Pharaoh's cup - From this we find that wine anciently was the mere expressed juice of the grape, without fermentation. The saky, or cup-bearer, took the bunch, pressed the juice into the cup, and instantly delivered it into the hands of his master. This was anciently the יין yain of the Hebrews, the οινος of the Greeks, and the mustum of the ancient Latins.
Adam Clarke

 

[corndogggy]

The alcoholic beverages industry is very much a man-made thing. Natural process are PERVERTED by man.

Yes, but the same people who would use this argument against alcohol is probably drinking and eating dozens if not hundreds of other things that are processed and tweaked by man, probably with unhealthy results too.

 

[corndogggy]

I don't have time to continue. I have better things to do.

:laugh: Unfortunately most other people here don't, so they worry about what everybody else is doing wrong.

 

[corndogggy]

My wife

Wow, I thought you were a woman. No, really.

 

[corndogggy]

Many have read about the health benefits derived from moderate wine consumption. Resveratrol-the heart healthy compound found in wine is also found in Concord Grape Juice. Research at Cornell University showed that Concord Grape Juice actually contained more resveratrol than many wines.

Yes, the flavinoids and antioxidants are also present in grape juice, but grape juice doesn't thin your blood at all, which is where the biggest advantage of drinking fermented wine comes from. Actually researchers have proved that moderate consumption of beer has about the same advantages as wine on your cardiovascular system due to the alcohol.

 

[mes228]

Strong Drink

I posted sometime back that I wasn't going to post on this subject anymore. I will post this last comment on the subject. Hopefully to end this thing I started, in peace. A few scriptures are germaine to this discussion. I quote out of memory and partially (also out of context but maybe meaningful to this discussion).

1."It's good for brethren to dwell together in peace"
2. God hates "those that soweth discord among Brethren"
3."come , let us reason together"
4. "stubbornness is as the sin of witchcraft"
5."must be blameless...not self willed..."
6. "presumptuous, self willed..."

A lot of stubbornness and self will is very evident in these positions. This subject has strong emotions. One "side" or the other is very much wrong and fails to see it. It's the lesser sin to just agree to disagree until God moves someones heart. It's pretty obvious this topic is going no where constructive. As an aside, the head of the Religion Department at Wake Forest (a Baptist College and I can't remember his name) was interviewed not too long ago, and I listened to it. By many he is considered the best educated, most intelligent, Baptist on earth. At any rate one of the questions he was asked was "what disturbs you most about being Baptist". Paraphrasing his reply he said "the way Baptist are taught makes them believe they are right, and in many cases they are not". So I suggest we end this topic. I'm sure none of us wish to be at odds with God or whatever is "right". Best regards and have a blessed day.

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

I posted sometime back that I wasn't going to post on this subject anymore. I will post this last comment on the subject. Hopefully to end this thing I started, in peace. A few scriptures are germaine to this discussion. I quote out of memory and partially (also out of context but maybe meaningful to this discussion).

1."It's good for brethren to dwell together in peace"
2. God hates "those that soweth discord among Brethren"
3."come , let us reason together"
4. "stubbornness is as the sin of witchcraft"
5."must be blameless...not self willed..."
6. "presumptuous, self willed..."

A lot of stubbornness and self will is very evident in these positions. This subject has strong emotions. One "side" or the other is very much wrong and fails to see it. It's the lesser sin to just agree to disagree until God moves someones heart. It's pretty obvious this topic is going no where constructive. As an aside, the head of the Religion Department at Wake Forest (a Baptist College and I can't remember his name) was interviewed not too long ago, and I listened to it. By many he is considered the best educated, most intelligent, Baptist on earth. At any rate one of the questions he was asked was "what disturbs you most about being Baptist". Paraphrasing his reply he said "the way Baptist are taught makes them believe they are right, and in many cases they are not". So I suggest we end this topic. I'm sure none of us wish to be at odds with God or whatever is "right". Best regards and have a blessed day.

yer contradicting yerself, mes...

3."come , let us reason together"

It's the lesser sin to just agree to disagree until God moves someones heart.

Which is it? you can't have both. BTW, if one obeys the written Word of God, not only will that one refrain from alcohol because the Word demands it in a Believer, but also that one will not 'agree to disagree' on topics. 'Agree to disagree should not be in the Christian vocabulary or their walk. The Christians should 'reason together and agree on what the Word of God says, not 'agree to disagree'.

 

[Jerome]

the head of the Religion Department at Wake Forest (a Baptist College and I can't remember his name) was interviewed not too long ago, and I listened to it. By many he is considered the best educated, most intelligent, Baptist on earth. At any rate one of the questions he was asked was "what disturbs you most about being Baptist". Paraphrasing his reply he said "the way Baptist are taught makes them believe they are right, and in many cases they are not".

"It is not now nor will it ever again be Baptist-related."
Bill Leonard, Dean of the Divinity School, referring to Wake Forest University, 2007.

 

[webdog]

No, I am asking a question.
Webdog claims "it wasn't consumed directly after it was squeezed."

Please show me from what was quoted for me that it was squeezed directly into a cup and consumed...
he squeezed them into a cup which the king held in his hand; and when he had strained the wine, he gave it to the king to drink, and that he received it from him with a pleasant countenance.

 

[Jerome]

Why is it so hard to get a straight answer to a question?
What in the verse (or Josephus' recounting) necessitates a postulation of a "time lapse so fermentation can occur"?

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

Why is it so hard to get a straight answer to a question?
What in the verse (or Josephus' recounting) necessitates a postulation of a "time lapse so fermentation can occur"?

The justification of the false premise that all wine was alcoholic in the Word of God necessitates a postulation of a "time lapse so fermentation can occur"

 

[ituttut]

Originally Posted by Allan
ituttut third and final page answering Allan post.

NOW, look at Chapter 15 as Paul continues his discertation:
Quote:
Rom 15:1 ¶ We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves.
Rom 15:2 Let every one of us please [his] neighbour for [his] good to edification.
Rom 15:3 For even Christ pleased not himself; but, as it is written, The reproaches of them that reproached thee fell on me.

Paul was clear cut and straight forward that we are to be about others and their edification and NOT about pleasing ourselves because we have every right. Love is about others not self.

Can't argue with these words, but we cannot become "clones of the weak", or completely loose our personalities. I think here and in chapter 14 we are to understand all of this is in the area of alleged things not mentioned as definite sins, or wrong pointed out to be wrong in scripture. Paul gives a good list of sins before he approaches these "wrongs people have in their own minds", so to them what is sin to one, they wish it to be sin to another.

From the stance you are taking, if someone told you it is a sin to sleep for more than four hours in a 24 hour period, would you stop sleeping more that four hours for the rest of your life? We have to make sense of what Paul is talking about for we would be living everybody's life but our own.

ituttut: I am not, and will not put my self on the same plane as Jesus, or those Jesus Christ personally, and verbally spoke to and heard by the human ear. There should not be any today that still adhere to being offended by meat or drink offered to Idols.

Allan: That is fine. But it was not Jesus who is speaking but Paul throught the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. It doesn't matter if it is to idols or to oneself, scripture states without equivocation it is about that which causes thy brother to stumble' and the meat and drink to idols were the examples Paul was using. You should know that at the very least!

Yes, and I just explained it to you above. It is really about the Gentile and the Jew. Tell me if you believe Paul is double-tongued in pointing out Peter's (Barnabas and others also) weakness for Peter was scared of James, and what that other gospel had taught them. There is an answer to what looks to be conflicting statements and actions by Paul. In your explanation's, I don't believe you can defend the actions of Paul in Galatians 2.

ituttut:We are also to use common sense and pay attention to other scripture. In Colossians 2:16 we are not to let any judge us, as it becomes their sin.

Allan: *sigh* You do understand (I hope) that Paul is speaking about the Jewish Law regarding eating and drinking, monthly and yearly feast, and sabboths? We know this is speaking of or specifically to the keeping of the Jewish Law because of the very next verse:

I was hoping you would follow through, and find the answer to what we have been talking about. Law verses Grace, and as pointed out in another post the weak tend to lean on the Law until they can stand on their own. Good work, but I don't know if you can see it. I find comfort in I Corinthians 2:15, "But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man."

Col 2:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body [is] of Christ.

The Law was the shadow of things to come which are fulfilled in Jesus.
Also, in relation to the "judging us". It must be noted this is speaking of determining if a person is a true believer or not by the criteria of the Mosaic Law which are a shadow of things to come. This judgment is more than just right or wrong but more in accordance which those whom Paul was contending against much of the time - Judisers. (though one may believe in Jesus, but if they did not keep the Law also, they were not truly saved). This is not about Paul saying don't let those people condemm you for 'doing them' but literially for NOT doing them. (eating, drinking, monthly and yearly feasts, and sabboths

I see we agree in part. I see in verse 17 to not let any tell us we are to do anything beyond believing on Christ Jesus. I shouldn't tell you to drink, and you shouldn't tell me I can't. You shouldn't tell me I have to be water baptized, and I shouldn't tell you not to. We work out our own salvation. What was once required were on shadows, but the substance is Christ Jesus - He is the Real Thing.In love and gratitude we live for him.

This is (once again) not properly dividing the word of truth but looking for proof-text according to pre-text thereby showing it is out of context. This was speaking to the Gentile church of those Judisers who would come in and bring the yoke of the Law upon them to bondage, where as in the beginning of the chapter Paul tells them not to listen to men (other gentiles and their teachings) either. But to hold fast Christ whom they have learned and are positioned in according the truths God revealed to them through Paul and others.

These Judaziers from Judah are of the circumcision gospel, and are under the rule of James, and if as you contend, James or the Apostles would not even eat with them. I believe you are sadly misinformed or have a wrong understanding that these would be Gentile proselytes. Read Acts 21:17-21. Then take a look at verse 28. No, I can't see the troublers were Gentiles from Jerusalem.

In light of the above it is clear you have misunderstood the passages you were quoting for being able to do something privately even though you know it is an offence and stumbling block to another believer.

How can they know if they don't know about it?

My contention still stands as I stated earlier. Thank you for your responding to me however.

I appreciate conversation with you. Hope you will see if we just leave Paul to break rules laid down, we have to come to the conclusion the Bible is at odds with itself.

 

[webdog]

Why is it so hard to get a straight answer to a question?
What in the verse (or Josephus' recounting) necessitates a postulation of a "time lapse so fermentation can occur"?

I answered this already. You have.
A. grapes squeezed into a cup
B. wine in the cup strained
C. wine given to the king to drink.

Since we know wine is alcoholic (not fruit of the vine, juice of the grape, etc.), and the text clearly states it was wine, it shoudl be apparent. At any rate you have the contents of the cup being strained of something, so that in itself does not lend to the notion that a grape was squeezeed into a cup and immediately consumed.

 

[Diggin in da Word]

How long does it take to strain a liquid through something? And since when does straining liquid through something cause that liquid to become alcoholic in content? Every study I have read on wine never says the straining of the grape juice causes it to become alcoholic in content.

Truth is, just as HBSMN pointed out, Josephus knew that it was mere grape juice handed back to the king.

 

[webdog]

Not only is that pure specultaion, but we know WINE was given back to the king. Wine is alcoholic.

 

[Diggin in da Word]

After looking at the Biblical account in Genesis 40:11 again, I realized something important. It definitely was not an alcoholic beverage given back to the Pharaoh... it was grape juice.

Genesis 40:11 (KJV) And Pharaoh's cup [was] in my hand: and I took the grapes, and pressed them into Pharaoh's cup, and I gave the cup into Pharaoh's hand.

 

[dan e.]

Some of you guys need to relax and have a drink.

 

[npetreley]

If you do it right, you can mix alchohol with gas and your car will run. This is one of the reasons I try to avoid analogies. If they don't backfire (no pun intended), people get hung up on the analogy and forget the point.