The Best Wine

If I have edited anyone's post it is only because of rude and offensive language.
Perhaps you are confusing quoting part of a post rather than the whole post. That is not editing. One is not required to post an entire post. You have the same funcition in that matter as I do. You can quote as much or as little as the other person's quote as you like. That is not what is referred to as "editing another's post. Where have I edited your posts, and for what purpose?
DHK

 

Or you can just tear those pages out... :laugh: :thumbs:

 

I tell you what I know, we were promised new wine in the kingdom. Whatever kind it is, I'm drinking it!

 

The trouble is: you are not taking it at face value, as many others are not taking it at face value. You are as bad as the KJVO naive apologist (if you can call him that) who says "If the KJV is good enough for the Apostle then it is good enough for me." That in a nutshell is your argument as well.
Wine is wine, no matter what the Greek or Hebrew says. In fact you seem to be saying (as well as others) that the English word "wine" supercedes that of the Greek or Hebrew, because you just don't care. You don't care what the older editions of Webster's dictionary say, those printed about 1813. You don't care about the meaning of oinos or yayin (Greek and Hebrew words for wine respectively). All you care abourt is the modern day meaning of "wine." That is as about as poor hermeneutics as one can stoop to.

Wine means wine. Yes--both fermented and unfermented, just as yayin and oinos do, and only the context of the passage give the true sense of the word. One cannot assume that in every passage it is alcoholic. That again, is just foolish hernemeutics, and it shows a lack of study of the Word of God. The one who does such things might as well write his own Bible, "for he is only "adding to the Scripture." Sound familiar?
DHK

 

I agree that name-calling is appropriate for removal.

Your post above implies that you edited my post at (scroll about half-way down)

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=33094&page=12

to remove name calling. As you said, " I suggest you remove yourself from the board and find another place where you can call people names."

There was no name calling in my original post at all. If one searches all of my posts, none have name-calling in them. I don't do that. So why have you charged me with it? Are you bearing false witness?

Here is the post AFTER you deleted portions of it:

Here is the post BEFORE you deleted portions of it:

In fact, you removed the most important parts! It showed an important analogy in parody. As with sex for pleasure, so with alcohol-containing wine for pleasure. The point is to show how, if one is to be consistent in their beliefs about non-moderationist beliefs about wine, it logically follows that they should hold the views about sex, as I stated them. If not, why not? Yet you say this "has nothing to do with the subject of the thread"?????? Missing this completely and plainly obvious thing is why I charged you with bias. What else could it be?

Also, the removed parts remain intact at http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=33094&page=8 from which I reiterated them because no one dealt with them.

If you are offended at the generic word "sex," you could have easily inserted "marriage act" in its stead rather than fundamentally altering the post. Regardless, the word "sex" cannot be why you edited the post because you left the word in several times after editing it!

The point about the tea is to show how wine was a common cultural beverage in the Biblical Meditteranean climates. But that is not so in, say, Somalia or Kentucky, just to pull out two places from a hat. Missiologically, if, for one example, the Arinji people do not even know what wine is and we evanglize them for the first time, can we use a correlate for wine from their culture, or do we have to import some Welch's or Chianiti? I don't think so. Would you tell the Arinji when they asked, "Can we use our special Yam juice?" just as you told me? "Do I care. No. I care what the Bible says; not about your preferences." So many here seem so hung up on the letter that they will do utter violence to the spirit.

 

At least we all can agree on that one point.

1. He was falsely accused of it when he didn't. Read the context.
2. Fermented wine symbolized leaven--a symbol of sin, and corruption, and false doctrine. Jesus couldn't and wouldn't use a sinful symbol that applied to himself--the sinless Creator. That would be ridicuolous and out of character.
3. As the governor of the feast explained, men use the best wines at the beginning of the wedding so when they "have well drunk," then they bring out the wines of lesser quality. Jesus did the opposite. Having done so let's consider what Jesus did:
First men, at least some of them, had "well drumk," They had either reached or almost reached the point of intoxication.
Second, If Jesus had given them more alcohol he would contributing to their drunkenness something strictly forbidden in the Scripture.
Third, in fact in doing so, he would be bringing a curse upon himself:

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!
--Jesus would not, and indeed could not, "give his neighbor drink." It is against the Word of God, which he would not do. He would bring upon himself a curse. There were many at the wedding that had already "well drunk."
Fourth, the only reasonable conclusion is that the Mighty Creator created grape juice, a juice that had better taste and quality than any type of wine that man could make. It was the better "wine" in every way, for it was the Creator himself that had made it.

You are asserting what you assume without doing any serious Bible study. You have not a shred of Scripture to base your findings on. Opinions don't count here. You have fallen into your own trap. You say what you say, only because of your own presuppositions. It seems like you really don't care what the Bible says on this topic.

You are comparing apples and oranges.
The proper comparison would be: We have alcohol in cough syrups (true), unknown to the average child. And as has been pointed out the average grape has a tiny bit of yeast on the outside of it, a fact that the average Israelite would be totally unaware of. They weren't molecular scientists. Nor do small children read the labels on cough syrups.
But even the children of the Israelites could tell the difference between a glass of wine and a glass of grape juice. To say they couldn't is being naive.

Again it is your presuppositions that have taken control of your thoght processes. There is no indication that Paul recommended Timothy to take any alcoholic beverage at all. One of the better remedies for stomach upsets such as remedies is in fact grape juice. Contrary to the opinions of some on the board here, I know this from my own experiences in third world countries given to me by other missionaries living there. I think that the personal experience is better than the armchair advice that you get here from those who have never been in such situations. I have had many doctors. But I have never had a doctor recommend an alcoholic beverage for anything. I know what they say about red wine being good for the heart in moderation. I also hear that there has been research done and they have found some benefits to smoking cigarettes. Of course it was sponsored by the cigarette companies. So don't get your hopes up too high about the benefits about alcoholic beverages.

Yes, that is today. So, understand that fermented wine was just as "polluted" as unfermented wine if not more. It was not pasteurized and in no way could be used as an antiseptic, unless it went through the entire process and became vinegar. But vinegar doesn't make you drunk. And vinegar no longer has the yeast in it.

In my view, you are confusing legalism with holiness as so many people do.

I agree somewhat with your conclusion. One can come up with a wrong conclusion about Christ drinking fermented wine, be in error about that, and still be worshipping the same Christ that I worship. That conclusion has gone too far. But I do conclude that you have not done enough Bible study on this matter.
DHK

 

I apologize for naming you as the person who edited the post. I saw no other moderator here so I assumed you were the one. You obviously know (and should know) the mechanics of the board better than I do as newbie.

As for the rest, your own words on their own merits prove my points perfectly. :wavey:

 

Quote: "#3. However I received at least a half a dozen complaints about the sexual nature of your posts in this forum suggesting by others that you have a one-track mind or something similar. Their complaint was, couldn't you talk about something else besides sex? So my question is: What does that say about your Christian testimony?"

Wow, perhaps I'm not welcome here either. The three letter word that starts with s is only for private forums and those who use them elsewhere (even as an analogy) are judged and then gossipped about with moderators. Methinks I can spend time elsewhere.

BJ

 

***Moderator note***

Academic---I am the one who edited your post!! I saw several references toward the subject of sex that I deemed #1 Inappropriate and #2 Not any relation at all to the subject. I have saved the original text and if you wish---I will refer the issue to our special moderator forum for further review!

Thank you for apologizing to DHK----please, though kindly refrain from posting subjects that are offensive. They will be edited if so deemed!

Blackbird

 

Quote: "Academic---I am the one who edited your post!! I saw several references toward the subject of sex that I deemed #1 Inappropriate and #2 Not any relation at all to the subject."

It's one thing to say that material is inappropriate because of its "s#xual" nature, but your #2 reason is absurd. By definition an analogy has no direct relation to the subject but highlights a similarity between two unrelated things. This narrow use of moderating criteria would lead to a moratorium of all analogies on all threads of the board. This is silly.

BJ

 

Brandon C. Jones

Thank you for sharing your opinion---but as moderator of this forum---I must say that your point is not well taken!!

Lets move on to the subject of the OP


Bro. David

 

I see how it is.

no thanks on your offer

 

DHK,

I have done quite a bit of Bible study.

My quip is still that you (and others) use your opinion that Jesus could not/would not have drunk wine as a pretext for your whole argument.

I cannot prove that Jesus made or drank alcoholic wine. True there are negative connotations of alcohol in the Bible.

But there are many contextual factors which suggest that He did not abstain from alcohol - these have been mentioned previously. It seems that, given how common wine drinking was back then that if Jesus had abstained the Bible would have made a point to that effect. And while the words ayain and oinos can refer to grape juice they refer, the vast majority of the time, to wine!

So we are left with the situation in which the Bible does not say specifically that Jesus drank wine - but it never makes a point to say that He didn't.

Yet HBSMN asserts that it has been proven "beyond a shadow of a doubt" - suggesting that anyone who holds a different opinion has not read the Bible under the Spirit of God. But it is yet clear that there is no statement whatsoever in the Bible that Jesus avoided small amounts of wine!!!

My point is that while you and HBSMN are entitled to opinions you cannot presume to speak for the Bible when it does not make a clear statement on a subject. And that is my problem with your stance. The text is the text - and that supercedes our opinions.

 

Wow, reading this thread with all the different issues oing on reminded me of this verse.

15 For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.

 

Here's my take on a second reason why the reasoning behind this passage only meaning non-alcoholic wine is wrong. I mentioned this before, but think about it in the context of what we've been talking about with the passage about the wedding ceremony:


Luke 5:39 - (Jesus speaking) And no one after drinking old wine wants the new, for he says, 'The old is better.' "


If Jesus himself can point out that it is obvious that everybody believes that the old wine (which is obviously fermented) is better, which is what we're debating here in regards to whether or not the "best wine" is fermented, how can you turn around and say that he is wrong? There is no reasoning behind this foolishness. Jesus said that the old wine is better, or at least everybody else believes that the old wine is better, so when I see a passage that mentions the BEST wine, I can only assume that it is the old wine, which is fermented.

 

I only got one answer on this, and it was that Jesus wouldn't have put wine into his bloodstream because it is impure.

I was looking for an explanation of the verse.

Does anyone have one? I've not heard of anyone accused of being a winebibber for having a cup of juice, but I've heard of people being accused of being drunks just because they have one drink.

 

FALSELY accused, I might add.

 

Agreed.

One thing I have to admit. This thread has me on a grape kick. LOL I've been munching away on grapes every single day like a madwoman. A bit ago I even mushed up some grapes to see what it was like to drink fresh grape juice. It's yummy!