His Blood Spoke My Name said:
Since the Word of God is clearly different than what you are advocating...
Your position is "clear" only to those who believe the way you do.
I can see that your lack of skill in biblical interpretation that you present does not help your position at all.
Then where have I erred? Demanding that scripture be interpreted in context instead of select out-of-context verses? Establishing my interpretation of scripture based on the actions of Jesus that demonstrate He was not opposed to the moderate consumption of alcohol beverages?
Listen, we've been round and round on this issue. Both positions have been laid out clearly.
One of the positions spends much time talking about non-alcoholic "wine", a proverb removed from its context, and equates moderate consumption with wanton drunkeness. Passages that don't fit the pattern are alleged to be talking about "non-alcoholic wine" and made non-sensical. (Apparently, deacons are not to be addicted to much grape juice. But why would the love of grape juice make someone unfit? Or is the passage actually talking about alcoholic wine? Then the passage clearly demonstrates that the problem is the addiction to large quantities of wine instead of the position of abstinance.)
The other position discussions the actions of Jesus, points to Levitical Law, relies on the practices of Jewish tradition, and the admonitions of the New Testament epistles for support. Futhermore, it clearly provides a consistent view across the pages of scripture that alcoholic beverages are not forbidden, but rather a gift from God. And like many of God's gifts (food, sexual desire, freedom) it can easily be misused and cause great destruction.
Which view makes sense and doesn't distort the scripture?