The point of intoxication

[Gina B]

Just a small comment here for the person who was saying that if it was wine representing Christ at Passover, one would be giving a child a watered down Christ if they mixed the wine with water.

Perhaps you were just joking...but in case you weren't aware of it here's a few notes.

The wine in Passover doesn't represent Christ. You're mixing that up with the wine used in communion.

When I drank wine as a child in temple guess what? It wasn't watered down and guess what else? I wasn't too fond of it. A child is not going to sit and drink a glass of wine. They will most likely take one tiny sip. There are a number of glasses of wine used for the event you mention, and people don't sit and drink five cups a piece or anything.

Most often what you will find in a ceremonial thingie where there's wine is that ONE cup will be passed around. I've seen a silver cup that would hold about 16 ounces of wine be passed to 50 people, and it wasn't empty at the end. If there's five cups, five will be passed around. Even five tastes of wine doesn't bring you near intoxication. You bring it to your lips until you taste it or get a tiny sip and you pass it on. Or you take a taste of your own and stop.

Or so and so can drink all five cups and dance like a nut because he thinks he's a helipcopter and his yarmulke is the propellers and that does happen in some cases but then you just call him King David and move on...

ANYHOW I just thought I'd throw that in just in case you weren't joking and really didn't know what/how wine is used in tradition.

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

We are not talking about tradition.

The traditions of man are vain.

We are talking about Scriptural commands for Abstinence. In the Passover, Christ called what was in the cup, the 'fruit of the vine'. He did not call it wine. And we know through careful examination of the scripture that the wine at the Lord's Supper, and that wine at the Wedding Feast, was pure and unfermented. And the new wine of His Kingdom, that which all true Christians will one day drink with Him; will also be pure and unfermented.

Anyone who teaches otherwise, is clearly teaching a doctrine that is not found anywhere in Scripture.

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

The Pastor's Title

<snip> wrong thread <snip>

 

[Brother Bob]

I saw a couple of brethren laying in the ditch with their tongues hanging out while I was on my way home. I think they were meditating but not sure.:laugh: :laugh:

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

In the Bible, God never approves of alcoholic beverages. Let us consider the following text:

Do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die: [it shall be] a statute for ever throughout your generations: And that ye may put difference between holy and unholy, and between unclean and clean; And that ye may teach the children of Israel all the statutes which the LORD hath spoken unto them by the hand of Moses. (Leviticus 10:9-11)

Notice how abstinence from alcohol is essential for being able to discriminate between clean and unclean, the text goes on to read:

And Moses spake unto Aaron, and unto Eleazar and unto Ithamar, his sons that were left, Take the meat offering that remaineth of the offerings of the LORD made by fire, and eat it without leaven beside the altar: for it [is] most holy: (Leviticus 10:12)

Regarding the prohibition of leaven in all offerings by God in Leviticus 2:3-14, Professor Moses Stuart states:

The great mass of the Jews have ever understood this prohibition as extending to fermented wine, or strong drink, as well as to bread. The word is essentially the same which designates the fermentation of bread and that of liquors.

Here we can see that leaven (fermented dough) was regarded as the same as vinuous fermentation; therefore fermented wine, strong drink, and leaven were all prohibited before the altar of the Lord "for it is most holy."

taken from Leighton G. Campbell's book, 'Wine in the Bible and the Scriptural Case for Total Abstinence' pp. 90,91

Abstinence from alcohol is commanded so one can distinguish between clean and unclean, so those proponents who drink alcohol because 'it is my God-given liberty' don't fully know what is clean in God's eyes. Their minds are clouded from knowing the difference.

 

[ituttut]

Where did that come from?

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!

Oh, I see, you forgot to include the motive...

There is a bit more to the verse than what you quoted.

Good point. We can never progress when we stop short, or disregard pertinent scripture.

 

[Gina B]

HB: We are not talking about tradition. The traditions of man are vain.

Gina: What are you talking about? There are traditional ways to observe things ordained/instituted from Heaven.
There are traditions in church services, in communion services, in baptism, etc..

Do you believe all those things are wrong? If so, how do you keep from having any traditions? Will you please explain? I know I can be a little slow sometimes, so help me out!

HB: We are talking about Scriptural commands for Abstinence. In the Passover, Christ called what was in the cup, the 'fruit of the vine'. He did not call it wine. And we know through careful examination of the scripture that the wine at the Lord's Supper, and that wine at the Wedding Feast, was pure and unfermented.And the new wine of His Kingdom, that which all true Christians will one day drink with Him; will also be pure and unfermented.

Gina: I'm willing to look into this more. I have in the past looked at the wording and read commentaries, which mostly seem to agree that this was speaking about wine, but it's been a while so maybe I misread?
Please explain what the words there meant and how you came to your conclusion that wine didn't mean wine, and fruit of the vine wasn't a reference to the spiritual vine and the redemption of the promise through that but was referring to us all getting together with Christ and drinking grape juice.

HB: Anyone who teaches otherwise, is clearly teaching a doctrine that is not found anywhere in Scripture.

Gina: I'm sorry, but that is not clear to me. So please, teach. So far I've just seen statements opposing drinking, with no real studies or explanations. Of course I just joined this thread and haven't totally read it through, so if you've already done so please forgive me, perhaps you can just copy and paste it so I don't have to wade through the muck to get to it!

Thanks so much for your reply so far.

Gina

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

Gina,

The Word of God clearly tells us the traditions of man are vain. When we stick to tradition of man, many times we are insensitive to the leading of God's Holy Spirit.

The Word of God further confirms we are not to stick to tradition in Paul's epistle to the Romans "Be not conformed to this world" Our mind should be on the things of God.

Am I saying there should not be an order in the House of God? of course not! Paul wrote 'Let all things be done decently and in order.'

As to the statement that "So far I've just seen statements opposing drinking, with no real studies or explanations.", Leighton G. Campbells studies have been quite thorough. He has quoted Historical figures from clear before Christ, he has quoted Biblical figures, and he has also quoted scientists, preachers, and professors.

So, much studies have been done, and much more care in the conveying the truth found because of those studies was included in the book.

There are many more paragraphs in the book that, if time permits, I hope to address here on the board.

But enough has been given to show the true Child of God is not to be a partaker of that fermented beverage that so many advocate drinking.

 

[corndogggy]

This has come up alot recently and I've talked to several friends on depth about it. I might could go into further detail later on, but here's a few of my opinions. I'll admit to being an occasional light drinker and some of the history of alcohol is interesting so don't take me the wrong way.

1. I see nothing wrong with sitting around with a mild buzz. The problem comes in when you drink enough so that you start acting like a fool and saying things you wouldn't normally, and basically present yourself as irresponsible. When you go even beyond that point, you are a danger to yourself and others due to both health reasons and potentially having an accident, all of which are bad.

2. In regards to people who say that wine in ancient times wasn't the alcoholic tool for getting drunk as we know it today, well, just look at the book of Genesis... both Noah and Lot get crazy sloppy drunk, so this is more than enough evidence to show that it was in fact fermented and alcoholic, and that was the very first book of the Bible.

3. Grape juice as we know it today wasn't invented until the late 1800's as an alternative to wine, as strange as that sounds.

4. Kentucky Bourbon was invented by a Baptist preacher. Drinking has always been much more socially acceptable until recent times, and stuff like this proves it.

5. Actually, it's my opinion that the people at the end of the 1800's is what changed alot of opinions. Before then, it was completely fine and perhaps even expected to be a light drinker. I mean, even the pilgrims drank mostly just ale. Anyway, what happened during this time period was that the Industrial Revolution came about, and people started working crazy hours at the factories. Many turned to drinking to relieve stress and to salvage some type of entertainment, but the problem was that they started drinking on the job. People were getting mangled in the machinery quite often. Not only that, but when they did get off work, they often went straight to the bars, bringing their entire families with them to waste their lives in a bar, and even the kids would drink. Obviously this is not good, and a reform was needed. However, things went from one extreme to another, and prohibition came about. I may be wrong, but I think that a group of baptist women was a major driving force, and these extremist ideas have lingered around ever since, but no, 200 years ago, we wouldn't be having this conversation.



To sum it all up, look at the famous quote by Benjamin Franklin:

"Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants to see us happy".

I'm not trying to cause a stink, which I know somebody is going to come back and say, but quite honestly I really believe that light drinking on an irregular basis is perfectly fine, and can be enjoyed by Christians, in moderation.


One point I have brought up recently is why do so many people get hung up on saying that any form of alcohol is wrong, while pretty much ignoring gluttony? Gorging yourself on bad food on a regular basis is just as bad or even worse than light moderate drinking if you ask me, you are really hurting yourself due to long term health problems, and also publicly demonstrating to everybody else that you cannot control your own desires.

 

[Gina B]

Gina,

The Word of God clearly tells us the traditions of man are vain. When we stick to tradition of man, many times we are insensitive to the leading of God's Holy Spirit.

The Word of God further confirms we are not to stick to tradition in Paul's epistle to the Romans "Be not conformed to this world" Our mind should be on the things of God.

Am I saying there should not be an order in the House of God? of course not! Paul wrote 'Let all things be done decently and in order.'

As to the statement that "So far I've just seen statements opposing drinking, with no real studies or explanations.", Leighton G. Campbells studies have been quite thorough. He has quoted Historical figures from clear before Christ, he has quoted Biblical figures, and he has also quoted scientists, preachers, and professors.

So, much studies have been done, and much more care in the conveying the truth found because of those studies was included in the book.

There are many more paragraphs in the book that, if time permits, I hope to address here on the board.

But enough has been given to show the true Child of God is not to be a partaker of that fermented beverage that so many advocate drinking.

But what is the tradition you're talking about? I was talking about the traditions of Passover, and Passover wasn't a vain tradition of man.
Or are you saying it was?!

 

[El_Guero]

WHEW!

This thread is turbulent!

 

[ituttut]

The Rev. Dr. William Patton quotes the Rev. Dr. Jacobus' comments on the wine our Lord created, which states:

This wine was not that fermented liquor which passes now under that name. All who know of the wines then used will understand rather the unfermented juice of the grape. The present wines of Jerusalem and Lebanon, as we tasted them, were commonly boiled and sweet, without intoxicating qualities, such as we here get in liquors we call wines. The boiling prevents the fermentation. Those were esteemed the best wines which were the least strong.

I don't understand the Reverends reasoning. Liquor is a beverage that is distilled rather than fermented. Liquors cannot be without alcohol, and if so it is not liquor. The grape has juice, and "grape juice" can be made from the juice of the grapes. What is "wine". Wine is made from the grape that is made alcoholic by a chemical process.

The good Doctor says "boiled and sweet, without intoxicating qualities, such as we here get in liquors we call wines. The boiling prevents the fermentation." He says "here" and really it makes no difference of where "here" is for he says "liquors we call wines", without intoxicating qualities. If no "intoxicating qualities" can be found then it cannot be called "liquors we call wine", for a drink cannot be called a "liquor" unless it has "intoxicating properties".

Give it up why don't you, and just accept that some Christians are free to drink "wine" in their liberty in Christ, and others do not wish to avail themselves of "making the heart glad".

 

[DHK]

3. Grape juice as we know it today wasn't invented until the late 1800's as an alternative to wine, as strange as that sounds.

Welcome to BB corndoggy. I trust you will find your stay pleasant and informative here.
If you are speaking simply of pasteurization I can agree with you, otherwise not. Grape juice has been around for centuries if not millenia. Just look in your Bible:

Nehemiah 13:15 In those days saw I in Judah some treading wine presses on the sabbath, and bringing in sheaves, and lading asses; as also wine, grapes, and figs, and all manner of burdens, which they brought into Jerusalem on the sabbath day: and I testified against them in the day wherein they sold victuals.

Isaiah 16:10 And gladness is taken away, and joy out of the plentiful field; and in the vineyards there shall be no singing, neither shall there be shouting: the treaders shall tread out no wine in their presses; I have made their vintage shouting to cease.

The grapes were gathered and then put in a large vat. They were "tread down." In other words the workers went in those vats and stomped on them with their bare feet until it was all juice. The skin was filtered out, and they had juice. There was no fermentation whatsoever, no so-called leaven as the skeptics try to point to. BTW, this method of making juice is still used in some areas of Italy to this day.

Jeremiah 48:33 And joy and gladness is taken from the plentiful field, and from the land of Moab; and I have caused wine to fail from the winepresses: none shall tread with shouting; their shouting shall be no shouting.

Jer 48:33 (Jamieson, Faucett, and Brown
shouting--repeated; as at the conclusion of the vintage, men sing over and over again the same cry of joy. A shouting shall be heard, but not the joyous shouting of laborers treading the grapes, but the terrible battle cry of the foe.

DHK

 

[DHK]

I don't understand the Reverends reasoning. Liquor is a beverage that is distilled rather than fermented. Liquors cannot be without alcohol, and if so it is not liquor. The grape has juice, and "grape juice" can be made from the juice of the grapes. What is "wine". Wine is made from the grape that is made alcoholic by a chemical process.

And what century do you live in?
Fermentation was the prcocess then, not "distillation."

 

[Blammo]

Isaiah 65:8 Thus saith the LORD, As the new wine is found in the cluster, and one saith, Destroy it not; for a blessing is in it: so will I do for my servants' sakes, that I may not destroy them all.

New wine is found in the cluster. Can't exactly be fermented, can it? But as it ages, what happens to it? How long does it take for the wine to become fermented?

Also:

Acts 2:13-15 Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine. But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words: For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.

Was Peter saying, "it would take an awful lot of new wine to make someone drunk"?

Also:

1 Timothy 3:8 Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;

Don't drink all the juice!!! :laugh:

Why not? If it is not intoxicating, what is the big deal?

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

I don't understand the Reverends reasoning. Liquor is a beverage that is distilled rather than fermented. Liquors cannot be without alcohol, and if so it is not liquor. The grape has juice, and "grape juice" can be made from the juice of the grapes. What is "wine". Wine is made from the grape that is made alcoholic by a chemical process.

The good Doctor says "boiled and sweet, without intoxicating qualities, such as we here get in liquors we call wines. The boiling prevents the fermentation." He says "here" and really it makes no difference of where "here" is for he says "liquors we call wines", without intoxicating qualities. If no "intoxicating qualities" can be found then it cannot be called "liquors we call wine", for a drink cannot be called a "liquor" unless it has "intoxicating properties".

Give it up why don't you, and just accept that some Christians are free to drink "wine" in their liberty in Christ, and others do not wish to avail themselves of "making the heart glad".

Many will come in that day and say, Lord, lord, we drank alocholic beverages in your name. And He will say, Depart from me, I did not condone it.

 

[corndogggy]

Many will come in that day and say, Lord, lord, we drank alocholic beverages in your name. And He will say, Depart from me, I did not condone it.

If it were in fact that big of a deal, do you not think that God would have had the foresight to thoroughly and properly explain in the Bible what exactly wine was?

Personally I think people are picking and choosing what kinds of wine was being used. I mean, there are plenty of stories about drunkenness, and obviously this is fermented wine. But then when people get to parts that involve Jesus or anything else that they don't want to believe to have anything to do with wine, suddenly it becomes "boiled and not fermented sweet non-alcoholic wine", even though I really don't believe the Bible tells us this, it does not make the distinction at all. By believing this, you are not going by what the Bible says, you're mixing in researched history outside of the bible to explain the bible, yet I've had alot of people tell me that I shouldn't watch the biblical explanations on the History Channel? What's the difference???

 

[ituttut]

Originally Posted by ituttut
I don't understand the Reverends reasoning. Liquor is a beverage that is distilled rather than fermented. Liquors cannot be without alcohol, and if so it is not liquor. The grape has juice, and "grape juice" can be made from the juice of the grapes. What is "wine". Wine is made from the grape that is made alcoholic by a chemical process.

And what century do you live in?
Fermentation was the prcocess then, not "distillation."

People have been getting drunk on wine since the days of Noah. Show me in scripture where people drank too much wine, and didn't get drunk. The properties of wine have never changed. You statements never have scripture to back you up.

I'll put it simply and that is I believe the Word as presented - "He watereth the hills from his chambers: the earth is satisfied with the fruit of thy works. 14. He causeth the grass to grow for the cattle, and herb for the service of man: that he may bring forth food out of the earth; 15. And wine that maketh glad the heart of man, and oil to make his face to shine, and bread which strengtheneth man's heart."

I await your answer/s to one and two of my posts on page 18 of this thread. However I understand it may take some time to digest His Word.

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

If it were in fact that big of a deal, do you not think that God would have had the foresight to thoroughly and properly explain in the Bible what exactly wine was?

Personally I think people are picking and choosing what kinds of wine was being used. I mean, there are plenty of stories about drunkenness, and obviously this is fermented wine. But then when people get to parts that involve Jesus or anything else that they don't want to believe to have anything to do with wine, suddenly it becomes "boiled and not fermented sweet non-alcoholic wine", even though I really don't believe the Bible tells us this, it does not make the distinction at all. By believing this, you are not going by what the Bible says, you're mixing in researched history outside of the bible to explain the bible, yet I've had alot of people tell me that I shouldn't watch the biblical explanations on the History Channel? What's the difference???

Christ, as King of kings and Prince of Peace did nod drink alcoholic wine. Prov. 31:4

Christ as our High Priest could not have drank alcolic wine. It is forbidden for the priests to partake of alcoholic wine.

We have been made kings and priests, we are also to abstain.

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

If it were in fact that big of a deal, do you not think that God would have had the foresight to thoroughly and properly explain in the Bible what exactly wine was?

Personally I think people are picking and choosing what kinds of wine was being used. I mean, there are plenty of stories about drunkenness, and obviously this is fermented wine. But then when people get to parts that involve Jesus or anything else that they don't want to believe to have anything to do with wine, suddenly it becomes "boiled and not fermented sweet non-alcoholic wine", even though I really don't believe the Bible tells us this, it does not make the distinction at all. By believing this, you are not going by what the Bible says, you're mixing in researched history outside of the bible to explain the bible, yet I've had alot of people tell me that I shouldn't watch the biblical explanations on the History Channel? What's the difference???

Jesus used history in teaching many times. Peter and Paul also used history.