... waiting for somebody to shoot down my opinion of Luke 5:39. 
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The Best Wine
- Thread starter His Blood Spoke My Name
- Start date
- Status
His Blood Spoke My Name
New Member
It's already been shot down. Go back and read the posts from Leighton G. Campbell's book.
His Blood Spoke My Name said:
Do you ever actually think for yourself?
His Blood Spoke My Name
New Member
Yes, I thought to post the wonderful truths about God's Word, not just from the Bible, but also from Leighton's book.
The original King James text said:
"No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better."
It says nothing about "dudes who are used to drinking fermented wine", it just says anybody who has drank. The explanations in that book is based off of the Amplified Bible, which adds some extra text and totally throws the meaning off.
"No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better."
It says nothing about "dudes who are used to drinking fermented wine", it just says anybody who has drank. The explanations in that book is based off of the Amplified Bible, which adds some extra text and totally throws the meaning off.
Hope of Glory
New Member
Gina L said:
We normally drink about a gallon of Newman's grape juice a week. I've done that by myself and then some! Thinking about all this grape juice really puts it in the forefront of your mind, doesn't it? (Oh, and a quart of red grape juice and a half gallon of white grape/peach.)
Back in post #187 I gave you a number of Scriptural reasons which have thus far gone unrefuted. Thus I stand by my statement. It is those statements that you need to address. Reread my previous post (#187), and then we can go from there. The basis of our debate ought to be the Bible not presuppostion.Charles Meadows said:
DHK
I don't agree with the explanation that was given. I don't agree that Jesus drank wine. It doesn't say that he did, but that he was accused of doing so. Think of some of the scenarios that would cause the Pharisees to say such things, and make such accusatory remarks that Christ refers to.Gina L said:
Christ went to the house of Zaccheus who only recently had been saved. But Zaccheus was black-listed as a publican, a sinner, one who was hated by the average Jew. There Christ ate with him. He kept his company along with the company of his friends in his social strata. The accusation was more against who he was with than what he was eating and drinking. How would the Pharisees know what they ate and drunk? They wouldn't even come near Zaccheus's house, much less enter it. To them it was anathema. There is no evidence that Jesus was served any alcoholic beverage there. He kept company with "sinners." That was the basic accusation. The other accusations, about being gluttonous and a drunkard were of course false. Christ was not a sinner--neither in eating too much food or in having too much to drink. They didn't know what he drank. It was only a foolish accusation.
DHK
DHK, I would take it as more than just a "foolish" accusation. False, yes, but they were not people who did not believe in Jesus, or the promise of a Messiah. They were looking for someone who fit the bill, and I'd assume they would watch him very closely.
I'm not a fan of Bush, but I know he choked on a pretzel. :laugh:
I'm pretty sure there wasn't anything Christ could do that wouldn't have been watched very closely. Perhaps bitter that he drank wine would be the reason. They WANTED the Messiah. I don't think he was dismissed immediately, I think they probably watched intently and were dismayed that he didn't fit in with the way they thought he would act, and they were bitterly disappointed.
And...that home wasn't the only one visited, nor is it logical to assume that nobody who wasn't a Pharisee ever sat to a meal or feast with him or observed rituals with him.
It does seem to be not just who he was, but who they thought he wasn't and it was partially based on exactly what the verse says...who he ate with and what he drank.
I don't think that the one particular occasion of visiting Zach. was the intent of that verse. It seems to be based on observation of Jesus for more than just one visit to one person.
I'm not a fan of Bush, but I know he choked on a pretzel. :laugh:
I'm pretty sure there wasn't anything Christ could do that wouldn't have been watched very closely. Perhaps bitter that he drank wine would be the reason. They WANTED the Messiah. I don't think he was dismissed immediately, I think they probably watched intently and were dismayed that he didn't fit in with the way they thought he would act, and they were bitterly disappointed.
And...that home wasn't the only one visited, nor is it logical to assume that nobody who wasn't a Pharisee ever sat to a meal or feast with him or observed rituals with him.
It does seem to be not just who he was, but who they thought he wasn't and it was partially based on exactly what the verse says...who he ate with and what he drank.
I don't think that the one particular occasion of visiting Zach. was the intent of that verse. It seems to be based on observation of Jesus for more than just one visit to one person.
Let's take a look at the context and see what Jesus was teaching. He was speaking about the ways of the Pharisees, and to those who still clung to the Old Testament, as compared to the disciples of Christ who (in the eyes of the Pharisees) broke their laws, by plucking corn on the Sabbath, not washing their hands, etc.corndogggy said:... waiting for somebody to shoot down my opinion of Luke 5:39.
Luke 5:36-39 And he spake also a parable unto them; No man putteth a piece of a new garment upon an old; if otherwise, then both the new maketh a rent, and the piece that was taken out of the new agreeth not with the old.
--Have you ever tried this? Take a brand new piece of cloth, a good patch, and sew it on a pair of jeans that has a big rip in it. It ussually doesn't work. The jean material has become too weakened to hold the patch, or the tear has become to big. The patch won't hold, and in fact, the patch itself might tear if you try this out. This is what Jesus is explaining.
He is teaching that you can't fit a new lifestyle, a new way of life, a new "religion" (Christianity) into an old system (the old Pharasaical system of doing things, or even the Old Testament law that John the Baptist had been following. That was past. It was old. Following Christ was new.
37 And no man putteth new wine into old bottles; else the new wine will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish.
--This statement is true for wine, grape juice, milk, or any kind of beverage. The empty old wine skin, made out of animal skin had become brittle with age, especially once it was empty and exposed to the sun. Put any beverage into it and it would burst. A new wine skin, would be necessary, even for water, for the animal skin would be flexible and able to endure the hardships of the elements.
38 But new wine must be put into new bottles; and both are preserved.
--Again, this is applicalble to any beverage. He is simply using grape juice or wine as an example. Either one will do. Even water would have done. It is a parable.
39 No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better.
--This is a proverb. It may very well refer to drinking an alcoholic beverage. But it is in the context of a parable. He is not advocating drinking, just as he is not advocating sewing in verse 36. To say so would be ridiculous. It is a parable, an illlustration. He is referring back to Jeremiah 6:16
Jeremiah 6:16 Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein.
The Pharisees were stuck in their old ways. Even a drunk would stick with old wine that he had been drinking and not want to change to new and better wine. So the Israelites did not want to repent. They wanted to continue on their old path of sin. They didn't care if their Messiah had come or not. "Where is the good way?" Jeremiah asks them. Christ is the way, the only way. They rejected him.
DHK
I agree. He ate at Simon's house, who refused him the hospitality that he would have shown to others.Gina L said:
He accepted the outpouring gratitude of a prostitute who washed his feet with tears.
His own disciple, Matthew (Levi) was formerly a publican (tax-collector), and others knew it.
His stated mission--I came not to call the righteous, but sinners unto repentance.
DHK
Amazing how many people think about wine and what they see as wrong.
The saddest thing I have found is that the areas of the country where it is preached against the most also have the most problems with drinking, poverty and teen age pregnancy.
My parents grew grapes and I cannot think of one grape farmer who had a drinking problem.
The saddest thing I have found is that the areas of the country where it is preached against the most also have the most problems with drinking, poverty and teen age pregnancy.
My parents grew grapes and I cannot think of one grape farmer who had a drinking problem.
Charles Meadows
New Member
DHK,
You suggested I go back and look at post 187, which I have.
But I see no verses suggesting that Jesus avoided wine.
I see a reference to Habakkuk in which we are told not to get a neighbor drunken to look on his nakedness.
I see references to leaven - but nothing that suggests that wine was considered off limits. I see some verses which suggest that wine was drunk commonly and I see some verses which suggest that an excess of wine is bad.
Then I see verses which say that Jesus made wine and drank the fruit of the vine! My view is that these refer to alcohlic wine. I think there are reasons to view it as such - but I do not assert that it is proven.
You on the other hand suggest that it is proven that He did not - and you suggest that because I have not reached this conclusion that I have not done my research.
The you say this: 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. This implies it is not the presence of alcohol itself which is sinful but rather the intent.
Once again. My point is that you have asserted, in my opinion somewhat arrogantly, that it is proven the Jesus never drank wine. It is clear from reading scripture that there is no proof either way - only contextual factors, which we interpret differently.
And my problem is not that you have a different opinion than I - but rather that you elevate your opinion to proof when no proof either way is available. If I were a legalist I would accuse you of presuming to speak for God - but I will not do such.
You suggested I go back and look at post 187, which I have.
But I see no verses suggesting that Jesus avoided wine.
I see a reference to Habakkuk in which we are told not to get a neighbor drunken to look on his nakedness.
I see references to leaven - but nothing that suggests that wine was considered off limits. I see some verses which suggest that wine was drunk commonly and I see some verses which suggest that an excess of wine is bad.
Then I see verses which say that Jesus made wine and drank the fruit of the vine! My view is that these refer to alcohlic wine. I think there are reasons to view it as such - but I do not assert that it is proven.
You on the other hand suggest that it is proven that He did not - and you suggest that because I have not reached this conclusion that I have not done my research.
The you say this: 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. This implies it is not the presence of alcohol itself which is sinful but rather the intent.
Once again. My point is that you have asserted, in my opinion somewhat arrogantly, that it is proven the Jesus never drank wine. It is clear from reading scripture that there is no proof either way - only contextual factors, which we interpret differently.
And my problem is not that you have a different opinion than I - but rather that you elevate your opinion to proof when no proof either way is available. If I were a legalist I would accuse you of presuming to speak for God - but I will not do such.
Brother Bob
New Member
Maybe that is why!
I certainly don't have any good memories from drinking period.
Brother Bob said:
You forgot the last part of my post, " My parents grew grapes and I cannot think of one grape farmer who had a drinking problem."
If it is so readily available to the producers why do they not have a problem?
I have never had good or bad memories because I have never been drunk or know what it is like ot have a buzz from it.
I am not a betting man but I would be willing to bet that more pastors have a drinking problem than grape farmers who grow the stuff.
gb93433 said:
Just because you're a barley farmer doesn't mean that you would have much of an interest to brew your own beer. I write websites for a living... yet I don't want to come home and make a personal site just for fun.
But, as for grape farmers making their own stuff... well, they're called a winery, and yes they both grow the grapes and make the wine with what they grow, a whole bunch of it. :thumbs:
- Status