The Best Wine

[DHK]

HAS edited my posts. If your neighbor is wronged do you only care about yourself?

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

 

[LeBuick]

It is impossible for wine to deceive me or cloud my mind since I don't drink it....
I just beleive what the Bible says, and it says wine... not juice, but wine..
I am not guilty of adding to the Word of God.... I am taking it at face value...

By saying that the wine in the Bible is only juice, is adding to scripture... Maybe you can write your own version of the Bible that deletes anything you don't agree with...

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

 

[LeBuick]

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

 

[DHK]

It is impossible for wine to deceive me or cloud my mind since I don't drink it....
I just beleive what the Bible says, and it says wine... not juice, but wine..
I am not guilty of adding to the Word of God.... I am taking it at face value...

By saying that the wine in the Bible is only juice, is adding to scripture... Maybe you can write your own version of the Bible that deletes anything you don't agree with...

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

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

One might also say the one that does not drink alcoholic wine, yet claims that the Lord drank it or that the Lord gave it to the guests at a wedding party, has had his or her mind clouded by the alcohol anyway.

 

[ACADEMIC]

I quoted that which I deemed to be approptiate, and not the whole post. If you are unable to have an intelligent post, but only able to call names then I suggest you remove yourself from the board and find another place where you can call people names. Here is what you said:
1. You and the folks around you don't care for grape juice. So what? What has that got to do with what the Bible says? We are not speaking of your preferences for hot dogs or otherwise. Keep to the subject.
2. You prefer iced tea with lemon. Again, So what! The Bible is not speaking about your preference of iced tea, nor is it mentioned in the Bible. Stick to the topic at hand.
3. "It is the tradition around here." I don't care what the tradition is around your aparts. I care about Biblical traditions and customs. It would be well if you would study more about the Bible and its traditions instead of your own.
4. "Snapple and Lipton are good brands." Do I care. No. I care what the Bible says; not about your preferences.
5. So you substitutue tea instead of grape juice for communion. I would never do that. I would wait until we had the proper elements available. Tea does not represent the blood of Christ. Christ did not command us to drink tea in remembrance of him. That is unbliblical. I don't throw away the Bible on a whim of what I prefer. Is your religion a religion of convenience or one of conviction. It seems it is one of convenience for you.
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:

***Moderator comment*** Paragraph is edited out because of inappropriate content that has nothing to do with the subject of the thread.

Even in moderate amounts, alcoholic wine is pleasurable because it is special. Regular grape juice is no more pleasurable or special than other varities of the Juicy-Juice I give my kids in their lunch everyday. Nor is fresh-squeezed grape juice any more pleasurable or special then, say, fresh squeezed pineapple, peach, or pomegranate juice, or even sweetened iced tea with lemon, for a few examples.

Most folks around me don't even like grape juice. And grapes do not grow anywhere nearby. We prefer sweetened iced tea with lemon. That is the tradition around here. Snapple and Lipton are really good brands. A few times the store was out of grape juice. So we used Celestial Seasonings Red Zinger tea for communion, since it is red and contains no devil-hol, like Jesus' blood.

***Moderator comment*** Paragraph is edited out because of inappropriate content that has nothing to do with the subject of the thread.

With fermented grape juice, it is the bare content and use of it that determines its nature, not the context or intent in which it is done or used. Same with sex.

***Moderator comment*** Paragraph is edited out because of inappropriate content that has nothing to do with the subject of the thread.

Here is the post BEFORE you deleted portions of it:

offensive language once again removed)
Even in moderate amounts, alcoholic wine is pleasurable because it is special. Regular grape juice is no more pleasurable or special than other varities of the Juicy-Juice I give my kids in their lunch everyday. Nor is fresh-squeezed grape juice any more pleasurable or special then, say, fresh squeezed pineapple, peach, or pomegranate juice, or even sweetened iced tea with lemon, for a few examples.

Most folks around me don't even like grape juice. And grapes do not grow anywhere nearby. We prefer sweetened iced tea with lemon. That is the tradition around here. Snapple and Lipton are really good brands. A few times the store was out of grape juice. So we used Celestial Seasonings Red Zinger tea for communion, since it is red and contains no devil-hol, like Jesus' blood.

(offensive language removed again)

With fermented grape juice, it is the bare content and use of it that determines its nature, not the context or intent in which it is done or used. Same with sex.

(offensive language once again removed.)

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.

 

[DHK]

If you would study, relying on the Spirit to reveal the truth, instead of your presuppositions as you have accused us of, you would see the truth. Jesus was sinless. He did not drink alcohol.

I agree that Jesus was sinless.

At least we all can agree on that one point.

We all have presuppositions - how do you that my presupposition is not that Jesus DID abstain from wine?

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.

But presuppositions are one thing and proof is another. When I read the Bible I see Jesus living as a commoner in rural Palestine. He ate with sinners, tax collectors and others who were "unclean". I assert the He drank wine because that is what almost everyone did. I also assert that He was never drunk in excess.

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.

We have alcohol in cough medicine. Does that mean a child sins when he/she is given NyQuil for a bad cold? Of course not! The child has no conception that alcohol is in any way bad - just as those in first century Palestine had no conception that a single glass of wine with a meal was in any way bad.

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.

For the apostle Paul to suggest that Timothy drink a little wine was not sin - for Paul would find no fault in drinking small amounts of alcohol with food to avoid water-borne illness.

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.

Today it is different. Pasteurization has solved our problems of contaminated drinks! So today to drink wine is a much different thing.

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 approach this from a far too legalistic standpoint. Remember Jesus' statement in Mark 7:

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

That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man.

A God fearing believer in first century Palestine who drank wine with food had no concept that he was sinning - and thus he was not defiling himself.

You and SFIC have given your reasons for believing that Jesus never drank wine. I can respect opinions. But you have gone beyond giving opinions - asserting that those who suggests Jesus drank wine believe in a false Christ.

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

 

[DHK]

I agree that name-calling is appropriate for removal.

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

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

to remove name calling.

I have the original post. There was no name calling in it at all.

If one searches all of my posts, none have name-calling in them. I don't do that.

Here is the post after you deleted portions of it:

Here is the post BEFORE you edited it:

No need to repost it. I will edit as Blackbird did originally. I did not originally edit your post. Blackbird did. However I did get a lot of complaints about it. As someone openly put it on this thread, there is no reason to bring sex into this thread. I will bluntly put it to you: get your mind oiut of the gutter, and use better illustrations. If you want to talk about sex with other Christians do so in the men's private forum, not in a public forum that even children read. Common sense is needed here. So expect some editing here as well.

In fact, you removed the most important parts! It showed an important analogy in pardoy. 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. Yet you say this "has nothing to do with the subject of the thread"???

No that is not logical. We are not talking of sex. Read the OP if you have trouble with the topic. It is not a good comparison, and does not do justice to the topic. And just to reiterate, it was not me that was editing your posts. Look down at the bottom of the post, and you will find the name of the moderator who edited the post.

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.

I supposte it was unforturnate that it was over-looked.

If you are offended at the generic word "sex," you could have easily inserted "marriage act" in its stead rather than fundamentally alter the post.

It is not simply me.
#1. You have broken BB rules by posting such material in an open forum when it should be posted in a private forum.
#2. It was not me that edited it, in the first place, so why the false accusations.
#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?

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 Aranji people of Western Somalia do not even know what wine is and we evanglize them for the first time, can we use a correlate from their culture, or do we have to import some Welches or Chianiti? I don't think so.

You apparently know little about missons. We do not substitute things for that which is commanded in the Lord's Table. Where there is a will there is a way. Laziness is no excuse, neither is a lack of Bible study an excuse. If one doesn't understand an idiom or a custom the Bible commands us to study until we find out what it means and why. We are to be students of the Book, and for good reasonl.
"Shall we sin that grace may abound."
"God forbid."
DHK

 

[ACADEMIC]

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:

 

[Brandon C. Jones]

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

 

[blackbird]

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:

***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

 

[Brandon C. Jones]

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

 

[blackbird]

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

 

[Brandon C. Jones]

I see how it is.

no thanks on your offer

 

[Charles Meadows]

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.

 

[LeBuick]

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.

 

[corndogggy]

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.

 

[Gina B]

[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.

Because he ate food, they accused him of eating too much and thereby sinning.

Because he drank wine, they accused him of drinking too much and thereby sinning.

Because he was a friend of publicans and sinners, they accused him of being "of the world" instead of working within it.

But the wisdom displayed in discretion in not eating too much, in not drinking too much, in giving the truth to those in need of it, the wisdom of the TRUTH in ALL things was and is and will be good.

I personally think that by saying Christ is a winebibber (a horrible accusation) because he drank wine is the same thing that happened here with the pharisees.

He WAS eating, he WAS drinking, and he WAS friends to publicans and sinners.
It was food, it was wine, and it was publicans and sinners.

But...they took the truth and made it into a lie.
It never says he wasn't REALLY eating or REALLY drinking or REALLY friends with them. There is no denial of that in the text. BECAUSE he did they called it sin by saying it was in excess, on all counts.


[/FONT]

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.

 

[corndogggy]

I've heard of people being accused of being drunks just because they have one drink.

FALSELY accused, I might add.

 

[Gina B]

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!