Alcohol in Heaven

[ChevyRodeo]

The word used for wine refers specifically to alcoholic, why are you ignoring that. If it was just grape juice they would have used another word to specify, rather then say wine. Wine is alcoholic, they said wine not grape juice, thats pretty solid.

 

[RND]

The word used for wine refers specifically to alcoholic, why are you ignoring that.

Because it doesn't always refer to fermented wine. Nothing in scripture indicates that the word "wine" only refers to fermented beverages.

If it was just grape juice they would have used another word to specify, rather then say wine.

And what word is that?

Wine is alcoholic, they said wine not grape juice, thats pretty solid.

Well, it would only be solid if it were that simple.

Mat 9:17 Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved.

The word for "new" here is neos and it means just that "new" as in "fresh". neos = including the comparative neoteros neh-o'-ter-os; a primary word; "new", i.e. (of persons) youthful, or (of things) fresh; figuratively, regenerate:--new, young.

The designation "new wine" indicates 'grape juice' or the freshly pressed juice of the grape which, when put into bottles would ferment and become alcoholic. Because of the gas released during the fermentation process it would make sense to put that wine into new bottles so they would not break during fermentation. It was common practice in these days to place the wine into cool, dark areas where it could ferment without sunlight to slow the process. To prevent fermentation the fresh juice was usually boiled for several hours to halt the fermentation process and reduce the juice to a consistency of jelly where it was commonly reconstituted at a later date.



Dr. Bacchiocchi, Ph. D. of Andrews University does a great job of providing some excellent research and Biblical perspective in understanding wine in the Bible.

 

[White Trailer Trash]

I am an alcoholic so I will be served grape juice at the great wedding feast.
Jesus has a whole bunch of grape juice put away for us alcoholics.

 

[Panin]

I am an alcoholic so I will be served grape juice at the great wedding feast.
Jesus has a whole bunch of grape juice put away for us alcoholics.

Me too. Well said trailer trash. It will be the same stuff he turned from water into wine at the wedding too. Non alcoholic.

 

[shad]

I am an alcoholic so I will be served grape juice at the great wedding feast.
Jesus has a whole bunch of grape juice put away for us alcoholics.

There will be no alcoholics in God's kingdom.

.

 

[Panin]

I am an alcoholic so I will be served grape juice at the great wedding feast.
Jesus has a whole bunch of grape juice put away for us alcoholics.

There will be no alcoholics in God's kingdom.

.

Nor anyone with any sin...

 

[LaCrum]

"Legalistic"? I think it's always convenient to throw out charges and terms that have nothing do to with the conversation as a way of masking the poor quality of the argument.

It has everything to do with the conversation. You’re arguing that there will be no alcohol in heaven or that drinking alcohol is a sin, when in fact, no where in the Bible does it state such a thing. It only prohibits drunkenness. So “legalistic†is actually the perfect term to describe your interpretation of it.

So you believe God gave us alcoholic beverages do drink and get sauced with? So then we can blame God for all the drunk driving tragedies that have befallen mankind?

Strawman. I never made any such assertion as that.

Trouble is, I don't see establishments for drinking good places for study. Neither I'm sure does the HS

Then I will, as I always try to, leave it up to the Holy Spirit to convict me of my actions if I’m not being obedient to his will.

I've read your source before and have some serious problems with there understanding and interpretations. From a scholarly standpoint it is seriously lacking.

Really, in what aspect? It’d be nice if you provided some examples instead of just asserting it is so.

I think the Bible clearly distinguishes the two.

Only in the context that you twist the meaning to fulfil your predisposed views on the matter.

This whole thread is rather absurd. One could change it from the question of alcohol in heaven as to whether there will be food in heaven. Food kills people, makes them lazy, makes them fat, and gives them health problems and thus desecrates the bodily temple in which dwells the Holy Spirit. As a result, there will be no food in Heaven, and certainly no fat people.

 

[RND]

It has everything to do with the conversation. You’re arguing that there will be no alcohol in heaven or that drinking alcohol is a sin, when in fact, no where in the Bible does it state such a thing. It only prohibits drunkenness. So “legalistic†is actually the perfect term to describe your interpretation of it.

I was arguing that there won't be any alcohol in heaven so there is no legalism in my argument. I have not said to anyone that "drinking alcohol is a sin". But seriously, if I said to Tiger Woods that "adultery is a sin" would you call me a legalist?

[quote:3da88g7v]So you believe God gave us alcoholic beverages do drink and get sauced with? So then we can blame God for all the drunk driving tragedies that have befallen mankind?

Strawman. I never made any such assertion as that. [/quote:3da88g7v] Just askin' a question. And it is germane to the conversation and has nothing to do with a strawman argument.

[quote:3da88g7v]Trouble is, I don't see establishments for drinking good places for study. Neither I'm sure does the HS

Then I will, as I always try to, leave it up to the Holy Spirit to convict me of my actions if I’m not being obedient to his will. [/quote:3da88g7v] Well, maybe this is one way the HS is trying to speak with you!

[quote:3da88g7v]I've read your source before and have some serious problems with there understanding and interpretations. From a scholarly standpoint it is seriously lacking.

Really, in what aspect? It’d be nice if you provided some examples instead of just asserting it is so. [/quote:3da88g7v] In order to do that I would need to dissect the entire article. But I will give you this from your source and my comment:

"Some take the words for wine to mean ‘grape juice.’ If this were so, then why would there be prohibitions against drunkenness? One cannot get drunk on grape juice. Further, Jesus’ first miracle was changing the water into wine at the wedding of Cana in Galilee. He made between 120 and 180 gallons of wine! Even if this had been grape juice, it would soon turn to wine because the fermentation process would immediately begin. But it most certainly was not grape juice: the head waiter in John 2:10 said, “Every man sets out the good wine first, then after the guests have drunk freely, the poor wine. But you have kept the good wine until now.†The verb translated ‘drunk freely’ is almost always used of getting drunk (and is so translated in the NRSV here). In the least, the people at this wedding feast, if not drunk, would certainly be drinking alcohol fairly freely (if not, this verb means something here that is nowhere else attested4). And this makes perfect sense in the context: The reason why a man brings out the poorer wine later is because the good wine has numbed the senses a bit. Grape juice would hardly mask anything. Note also Acts 2:13—â€they are full of sweet wineâ€â€”an inaccurate comment made about the apostles when they began speaking in tongues, as though this explained their unusual behavior. The point is: If they were full of grape juice would this comment even have made any sense at all? That would be like saying, “Well, they’re all acting strange and silly because they have had too much orange juice this morning!â€

If there was a chance there was a pregnant women or women were attending this wedding feast and they didn't know they were (and Jesus would know if there were) is it conceivable that Jesus would make alcohol for women to drink that could possible harm their babies?

If you can say yes to that then I feel very sorry for you.

[quote:3da88g7v]I think the Bible clearly distinguishes the two.

Only in the context that you twist the meaning to fulfil your predisposed views on the matter. [/quote:3da88g7v] No twisting. There are plenty of parts in scripture that indicate the difference between grape juice, wine and hard drink.

This whole thread is rather absurd.

Apparently not!

One could change it from the question of alcohol in heaven as to whether there will be food in heaven.

Which there will be.

Food kills people, makes them lazy, makes them fat, and gives them health problems and thus desecrates the bodily temple in which dwells the Holy Spirit.

Guess that explains why we will eat from the "Tree of Life" and why Mickie D's and Burger King won't be there!

As a result, there will be no food in Heaven, and certainly no fat people.

Um, now you are just being obtuse.

 

[LaCrum]

I was arguing that there won't be any alcohol in heaven so there is no legalism in my argument. I have not said to anyone that "drinking alcohol is a sin". But seriously, if I said to Tiger Woods that "adultery is a sin" would you call me a legalist?

You’re being very dishonest with that statement. If you truly believed that drinking alcohol was not a sin, then why would there not be any alcohol in Heaven if drinking it wasn’t sinful?

Just askin' a question. And it is germane to the conversation and has nothing to do with a strawman argument.

It had everything to do with a strawman since you were arguing against a position I never took.

If there was a chance there was a pregnant women or women were attending this wedding feast and they didn't know they were (and Jesus would know if there were) is it conceivable that Jesus would make alcohol for women to drink that could possible harm their babies?

If you can say yes to that then I feel very sorry for you.

Obviously if there was a pregnant woman she wouldn’t drink the wine whether Jesus had made it or not. I’m not really sure what you’re trying to show with that statement. Not to mention this story makes no sense if they’re referring to grape juice. Why would people at a wedding save the bad wine for last? Because the good wine had numbed their senses enough that it didn’t matter that they were no longer drinking good wine.

No twisting. There are plenty of parts in scripture that indicate the difference between grape juice, wine and hard drink.

You are quite right there are. Let’s look them over:

http://www.reformedpresbytery.org/books ... coholb.htm

1. Old Testament words for alcoholic beverages
a. Yayin (wine)
(1) The same wine (yayin) that intoxicated Noah (Gen. 9:21), Lot (Gen. 19:32-35), Nabal (1 Sam. 25:36-37), and others (Is. 28:1,7) was given as a gift to others by godly men. For example, Melchizedek, a type of Christ and the priest of the Most High God, gave yayin to Abraham (Gen. 14:18; Heb. 7:3).
(2) Yayin is commanded by God to be brought to Him as an offering in worship (Ex. 29:38,40; Lev. 23:13; Num. 15:5,7,10).
(3) Yayin is a gracious blessing from God to be enjoyed by His people (Deut. 14:26; Ps. 104:14-15; Eccl. 9:7; Is. 55:1; Amos 9:13-15).
(4) Yayin in plenty is a sign of God's blessing, while the lack of it is a sign of God's cursing (Deut. 28:39).
(5) Yayin is one of the delicacies that Divine Wisdom prepares for all who seek her (Prov. 9:1-5).
b. Tirosh (new wine)
(1) The same tirosh (new wine) that could enslave the heart when abused (Hos. 4:11) is a blessing from God (Gen. 27:28,37; Deut. 7:13; Prov. 3:10).
(2) The removal of tirosh is a sign of God's curse (Deut. 28:51).
c. 'asis (sweet wine)
(1) The same'asis (sweet wine) that intoxicates when abused (Is. 49:26; Joel 1:5) is also used as a sign of the Messianic blessings to come for God's people (Joel 3:18; Amos 9:13).
d. Shekar (strong drink, from the root shakar, to be drunk or intoxicated)
(1) The same shekar (strong drink) that makes drunk (Prov. 20:1; Is. 5:11) is yet commanded to be offered as a drink offering to the Lord in worship (Num. 28:7), and is to be joyfully consumed as a part of the "rejoicing tithe" unto the Lord (Deut. 14:26).
e. Hamer (wine in the Chaldean language, from hamar which means to ferment)
(1) The same hamer abused by Belshazzar (Dan. 5:1-4) is a blessing God gives to His people (Deut. 32:14). In Deuteronomy 32:14 hamer (fermented wine) parallels the phrase "the blood of the grapes" and yet it is this same hamer that has the capacity to intoxicate in Daniel 5:1-4.
f. Sobe (translated as wine, liquor, and drunken)
(1) This word only occurs three times in the Old Testament (Is. 1:22; Hos. 4:18; Nahum 1:10).
(2) God condemns Jerusalem because "the faithful city has become a harlot" (Is. 1:21) and because "your silver has become dross, your wine mixed with water" (Is. 1:22). The point being that all that was good in Jerusalem had become corrupted. Just as good silver is corrupted by dross, so good wine (sobe) is corrupted (not helped) by water. Thus, from this text it appears that the argument used by many today that the wine used in biblical times was diluted with water to such an extent as to render the alocoholic content of no effect is contradicted by Isaiah 1:22. For God says that the diluting of wine with water is a symbol of corrupting or adulterating that which is good.
g. Mesek (wine mixed with spices)
(1) The same mesek that produces an intoxicating drink (Is. 5:22) is used for one part of the banquet which Divine Wisdom prepares for those who seek her (Prov. 9:2,5).
(2) Mesek describes the mingling of spices with wine (yayin) as in Proverbs 9:2,5 or the mingling of spices with strong drink (shekar) as in Isaiah 5:22.
h. Mishrah (the juice of grapes)
(1) There is a word in the Hebrew language that means "grape juice." The only time it is used in the Old Testament is in Numbers 6:3 where the Nazarite is not only forbidden from drinking yayin (wine) and shekar (strong drink), but is also prohibited from drinking mishrah (grape juice).
(2) Those who would argue from silence that there was an unfermented yayin (wine) used in the Old Testament must produce an example to demonstrate that such is the case. Simply to make an assertion is no argument. Otherwise, I can equally assert that such was not the case and my argument must stand.
(3) In interpreting the meaning of the various words used for alcoholic beverages in the Old Testament, one should assume these words refer to fermented beverages wherever they appear (since there are clear biblical references to establish the fact that they could intoxicate when abused) unless the context clearly states otherwise and cannot be understood using the stndard meaning of the word found elsewhere in Scripture. In other words, God must define these words--we must not impose our own definition upon them (i.e. Scripture must interpret Scripture).
(4) Finally, since God does use a word in the Old Testament that unambiguously means grape juice (mishrah), why is it used only once? Why is mishrah (grape juice) not used instead of yayin (wine) throughout the Old Testament if it was essentially grape juice that was being used as a common beverage. To the contrary, God demonstrates that yayin (wine) and mishrah (grape juice) are two different types of beverages by using two different words in Numbers 6:3--one being alcoholic (yayin), the other being nonalcoholic (mishrah). Thus, wine (yayin) must be understood throughout the Old Testament to be a fermented beverage unless God speaking in Scripture specifically alters the meaning.
i. The only circumstances under which alcoholic beverages were prohibited in the Old Testament were the following:
(1) While priests ministered in the Tabernacle before the Lord they were to be careful that their judgment was not impaired so as not to incur the wrath of God as did Nadab and Abihu (Lev. 10:9).
(2) When kings sat in courts to rule as judges they were not to use anything that might dull their judgment in the use of God's law (Prov. 31:4,5).
(3) When one took a Nazarite vow he was to refrain from what was lawfully enjoyed by others (e.g. wine, strong drink, vinegar, grape juice, grapes, or raisins) in order to demonstrate that he was consecrated to God (Num. 6:2-6). Those today who would use the Nazarite vow as a warrant to prohibit all alcoholic beverages must not stop with wine and strong drink, but must as well vow to refrain from consuming grape vinegar, grape juice, grapes or raisins (Num. 6:3). Moreover, they must not cut their hair (Num. 6:5), nor attend a funeral (Num. 6:6-7), not even the funeral of a close relative. Finally, when the days of the vow are completed (note here that this vow was not normally a lifelong separation from the things mentioned above), they must bring the following offerings to the door of the tabernacle (Num. 6:13-20): a male lamb, a female lamb, a ram, unleavened bread, drink offerings, and their hair. In other words, to resurrect the Nazarite vow is to resurrect the ceremonial shadows of the Old Testament law (Col. 2:17; Heb. 10:1). But again, note that when the vow was completed (Num. 6:20), it was not a sin to drink the same wine (yayin ) that one was forbidden to drink while under the Nazarite vow (Num.6:3). Thus, it is clear that the use of alcoholic beverages was not normally unlawful to God's people.
(4) The case of the Rechabites (Jer. 35:1-19) was a prophetic picture (like that of Hosea marrying a harlot) in which the Rechabite's refusal to drink wine, to build houses, to sow seed, and to plant vineyards indicated their willingness to obey the command of their father Jonadab (it was not God who prohibited these things to the Rechabites nor to any one else under normal circumstances) even though the command was strict. To the contrary, God's people, Judah, refused to obey God their Father. Furthermore, the Rechabite's vow not only involved abstaining from wine, but also other lawful activities such as building houses, sowing seed, and planting vineyards which likely indicated that a time of God's judgment was shortly to come in which the people of Judah would not drink wine, build houses, sow seed, nor plant vineyards in the land of Judah--they would be like the Rechabites. It is obvious that just as it was not unlawful for God's people to build houses, to sow seed in a field, or to plant vineyards, so it was not unlawful for God's people to drink wine. Those today who would follow the pattern of the Rechabites in vowing to refrain from alcoholic beverages must also refuse to sow seed, plant a vineyard and live in a house, and rather vow to dwell in tents for this was the total prophetic picture that was presented to Judah (the living in a house and planting a garden would have violated their vow as much as drinking wine, cf. Jer. 35:8-10). Moreover, the Rechabites did not condemn others for drinking wine (yayin), living in houses, or planting gardens, thus their example does not fit into the prohibitionist position where all use of alcoholic beverages is condemned by the prohibitionist.
(5) The abuse of alcoholic beverages in drunkenness is strictly forbidden (Prov. 23:20).

 

[LaCrum]

2. New Testament words for alcoholic beverages
a. Oinos (wine)
(1) Oinos is very obviously an alcoholic beverage for it is used in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament) to translate each of the Hebrew words that refer to an intoxicating drink (yayin, tirosh, 'asis, shekar, hamer, sobe). Though we saw that there is a Hebrew word for the juice of grapes (mishrah cf. Num. 6:3) used in the Old Testament, the Septuagint does not use oinos (wine) to translate that word which it should have done if oinos (wine) in the New Testament is simply grape juice.
(2) Oinos in the New Testament is an intoxicating beverage for the word for a "winebibber" (i.e. one who drinks wine to an excess) is oinopotes (Mt. 11:19; Lk. 7:34). In contrast to John the Baptist, the Lord was accused of being both a glutton and a winebibber (he was neither) because he ate bread and drank wine with sinners (Mt. 9:10; Mt. 11:18-19; Mk. 2:15-16; Lk. 5:29-30; Lk. 7:33-34; Lk. 15:1-2). The obvious contrast between John the Baptist and the Lord Jesus is that John, a Nazarite, lived in the wilderness and neither ate bread nor drank wine (he ate locusts and wild honey, cf. Mt. 3:4; Mk. 1:6), while Christ, a Nazarene (not a Nazarite, but a Nazarene i.e. one from Nazareth), both ate bread and drank wine. And yet the Jewish leaders found fault with both John and Christ. The Lord is simply pointing out to the Jewish leaders that their problem with John and with Him is not one of lifestyle (the lifestyles of John and Jesus were quite different), but rather their problem is with the message John and Jesus brought (the message of John and Jesus was the same). Jesus could hardly have been accused of being a winebibber had he totally abstained from alcoholic beverages as did John.
(3) The same oinos that makes one drunk (Eph. 5:18) was created by Jesus to be served at a wedding feast with full knowledge that it had the capacity to make one drunk (Jn. 2:1-11). After tasting the wine which the Lord had created, the master of the feast told the bridegroom that it was the custom to give the guests "the good wine" first "and when the guests have well drunk" (literally, "when they become drunk") then to give them the inferior wine. The Greek word for "drunk" (Jn. 2:10), methuo is used without exception in the New Testament to refer to one being intoxicated (Mt. 24:49; Acts 2:15; 1 Cor. 11:21; 1 Thess. 5:7; Rev. 17:2,6). The Greek word for "drunkard" (methusos , cf. 1 Cor. 5:11; 1 Cor. 6:10) is a form of methuo. One other form of methuo is found in the New Testament, methuskomai (Lk. 12:45; Eph. 5:18; 1 Thess. 5:7), and this word also refers without exception to one being intoxicated. Thus, it is clear that "the good wine" (oinos) which Christ created had the capacity to intoxicate. The master of the feast relates to the bridegroom that the inferior wine was normally saved to last after the guests had consumed "the good wine" and were drunk (by then they would not notice the inferior quality of the wine they were drinking), but in this case "the good wine" (the same oinos that could make one drunk) which Jesus had created was saved and served to the guests last. There is no getting around the fact that "the good wine" which Christ created was "the good wine" which made guests drunk at wedding feasts (Jn. 2:10). Obviously, Christ is not condoning drunkenness, but rather giving His tacit approval for the lawful use of alcoholic beverages even in social contexts.
(4) The same oinos that could intoxicate (Jn. 2:10; Eph. 5:18) was hailed for its medicinal value by an apostle of Jesus Christ (1 Tim. 5:23). This is not a mere suggestion from Paul to Timothy, but a command (literally, "Stop using water any longer, but continuously use a little wine on account of your stomach and your frequent weaknesses."). The inspired Word of the all wise God declares that wine in moderation is not detrimental to one's health, but to the contrary, beneficial to one's health ("Let God be true, but every man a liar" Rom. 3:4).
(5) The same oinos that had the capacity to inebriate (Jn. 2:10; Eph. 5:18) was not forbidden in moderate use to elders or deacons (1 Tim. 3:2,8) The prohibition in 1 Timothy 3:2 is against lingering a long time beside one's wine (paroinos) i.e. lingering because one's glass is repeatedly filled until drunkenness occurs. This is actually a prohibition against drinking much wine not against the moderate use of wine. This is made clear in 1 Timothy 3:8 where the prohibition is against drinking "much wine", not against drinking wine at all.
b. The fruit of the vine (Mt. 26:29; Mk. 14:25; Lk. 22:18)
(1) This phrase does not refer to grape juice any more than does the phrase "the blood of grapes" (in Gen. 49:11 "the blood of grapes" is parallel to yayin i.e. alcoholic wine, and in Deut. 32:14 "the blood of grapes" is parallel to hamer i.e. fermented wine).
(2) If taken quite literally, "the fruit of the vine" would refer to whole grapes, thus the phrase must be used figuratively in some sense.
(3) Dunlop Moore summarizes the distinct Jewish meaning of the phrase as follows:
The expression the "fruit of the vine" is employed by our Saviour in the synoptical Gospels to denote the element contained in the cup of the Holy Supper. The fruit of the vine is literally the grape. But the Jews from time immemorial have used this phrase to designate the wine partaken of on sacred occasions, as at the Passover and on the evening of the Sabbath. The Mishna (De. Bened, cap. 6, pars i) expressly states, that, in pronouncing blessings, "the fruit of the vine" is the consecrated expression for yayin.. . . . The Christian Fathers, as well as the Jewish rabbis, have understood "the fruit of the vine" to mean wine in the proper sense. Our Lord, in instituting the Supper after the Passover, availed himself of the expression invariably employed by his countrymen in speaking of the wine of the Passover. On other occasions, when employing the language of common life, he calls wine by its ordinary name (Cited in The Christian And Alcoholic Beverages by Kenneth L. Gentry, p.55).
(4) Furthermore, the drink offering that was poured out before the Lord at the Passover and on other occasions was wine not grape juice (Num. 28:24; cf. Num. 28:14 where the drink offering is specifically identified as wine, yayin ). It would certainly follow that the Lord used wine at the Passover celebration (and at the institution of the Lord's Supper) with His disciples in Matthew 26:29.
(5) Just as Isaiah can refer to "a vineyard of red wine" (hamer, fermented wine ) in Isaiah 27:2 because fermented wine is derived from the vineyard, in like manner Jesus can can refer to "the fruit of the vine" and yet mean the fermented wine that is derived from the fruit of the vine.
(6) Christ teaches that the "fruit of the vine" signifies "My blood of the new covenant" (Mt. 26:28). Though the phrase, "the blood of grapes" is not used in the Last Supper account, it is difficult to overlook the parallel between the "blood of grapes" and the "blood of the new covenant." Yet "the blood of grapes" is used synonomously for both yayin (alcoholic wine) in Genesis 49:11, and for hamer (fermented wine) in Deuteronomy 32:14.
(7) Melchizedek is a type of Christ (Heb. 7:3) while Abraham is the father of all who believe (Rom. 4:11). Even as Abraham tithed of his increase to Melchizedek, the king of righteousness (Heb. 7::2,4), so do the children of Abraham tithe of their increase to Christ, the King of righteousness (Heb. 7:9-10). Likewise, even as Melchizedek, the priest of God Most High, gave to Abraham bread and wine (yayin ) and then blessed Abraham (Gen. 14:18-19), so does Christ, the Great High Priest of the new covenant, give to the children of Abraham bread and wine at the Lord's Supper and bless them (Mt. 26:26-29).
(8) Finally, one must assume that intoxicating wine was being used to celebrate the Lord's Supper in the church of Corinth for believers were combining the love feast with the Lord's Supper and some were partaking of the Lord's Supper in a drunken state as a result (cf. 1 Cor. 11:21 where the verb metheuo is used i.e. intoxicated). Although wine was clearly abused by the Corinthian believers in conjuction with the Lord's Supper, Paul does not condemn the Corinthian Chirsitans for using wine, nor does he prohibit the use of wine in the Lord's Supper. Paul's correction is directed toward their sinful abuse of wine not their lawful use of it. If wine was not lawfully to be used in the Lord's Supper, here was the ideal time for Paul to demonstrate where the use of wine would lead those who broke God's law by using it in the Lord's Supper. The silence concerning any prohibition of wine in the Lord's Supper at this point is deafening.
c. Sikera (strong drink)
(1) This is one of the intoxicating beverages that John the Baptist was prohibited from drinking (Lk. 1:15). The other intoxicating drink prohibited to John was oinos (wine).
d. Gleukos (new wine)
(1) Gleukos was certainly capable of intoxication for the disciples are accused of being filled with gleukos (new wine) in Acts 2:13. Whereas Peter attributes the behavior of the disciples not to drunkenness (metheuo), but to the Spirit of God (Acts 2:15).
e. Therefore, the words used for wine in the New Testament (oinos, sikera, gleukos) speak of beverages that have the capacity to intoxicate contrary to the view of some who would argue that wine in the New Testament was so diluted with water that it was almost impossible to intoxicate using it, or that the wine of the New Testament was essentially grape juice.
f. There was a Greek word available to the writers of the New Testament which might have been used to refer to grape juice (trux) had they wanted their readers to understand that the common beverage used by Christ, the disciples, Timothy, the elders and deacons, and the Corinthian believers was unfermented grape juice (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament And Other Early Christian Literature , by Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich, p.564). The Holy Spirit of God chose not to use trux (grape juice) even one time in the New Testament. There is therefore no reference in the New Testament to unfermented grape juice, but all references are to fermented wine.

Guess that explains why we will eat from the "Tree of Life" and why Mickie D's and Burger King won't be there!

Does that mean that eating from either of those places is sinful because it causes gluttony? Or might it be the eating in excess that is the sin?

Um, now you are just being obtuse.

No, I’m actually using your own reasoning against you to show how flawed it is.

You are saying that there will be no alcohol in Heaven since drunkenness is a sin and alcohol leads to drunkenness. I’m saying, with that logic, since gluttony is also a sin, and food leads people to gluttony, there will therefore be no food in Heaven. How is my line of reasoning on that subject any different from yours?

 

[RND]

You’re being very dishonest with that statement. If you truly believed that drinking alcohol was not a sin, then why would there not be any alcohol in Heaven if drinking it wasn’t sinful?

Because it simply won't be necessary. Nothing "dishonest" in that view. But I will say this. The body is the temple of the Holy Spirit. It is a gift from God. The man that destroys that body him shall the Lord destroy.

It had everything to do with a strawman since you were arguing against a position I never took.

I was arguing against a "logical fallacy" that your argument brings up.

[quoted9bt8m9]If there was a chance there was a pregnant women or women were attending this wedding feast and they didn't know they were (and Jesus would know if there were) is it conceivable that Jesus would make alcohol for women to drink that could possible harm their babies?

If you can say yes to that then I feel very sorry for you.

Obviously if there was a pregnant woman she wouldn’t drink the wine whether Jesus had made it or not.[/quoted9bt8m9] But she would drink grape juice.

I’m not really sure what you’re trying to show with that statement. Not to mention this story makes no sense if they’re referring to grape juice. Why would people at a wedding save the bad wine for last?

Well, you answered the allegory yourself. The wine at the wedding represents Jesus blood that He will shed. That's why He tells His mother it's not His time. He was indeed saving the best blood for last. But notice something about this story. The wine Jesus made didn't intoxicate the people further but rather it woke them up. If a drunk at the end of the feast wasn't supposed to know the difference in the quality of the wine being served how were they able to tell Jesus saved the best for last? The wine Jesus gave them caused them to come out of their drunken stupor.

Because the good wine had numbed their senses enough that it didn’t matter that they were no longer drinking good wine.

The wine Jesus served woke them up, it did further numb their senses.

You are quite right there are.

Thank you.

 

[RND]

Does that mean that eating from either of those places is sinful because it causes gluttony? Or might it be the eating in excess that is the sin?

No, not at all.

[quote:swgn3jn2]Um, now you are just being obtuse.

No, I’m actually using your own reasoning against you to show how flawed it is. [/quote:swgn3jn2] No, your just bringing up another "logical fallacy" by suggesting that because there won't be alcohol in heaven there any food there because, well, it could be harmful.

You are saying that there will be no alcohol in Heaven since drunkenness is a sin and alcohol leads to drunkenness. I’m saying, with that logic, since gluttony is also a sin, and food leads people to gluttony, there will therefore be no food in Heaven. How is my line of reasoning on that subject any different from yours?

Because you obviously aren't considering who will be feeding us.

 

[LaCrum]

Because it simply won't be necessary. Nothing "dishonest" in that view. But I will say this. The body is the temple of the Holy Spirit. It is a gift from God. The man that destroys that body him shall the Lord destroy.

And thus stands my argument that from your reasoning, there will not be food in Heaven either.

I was arguing against a "logical fallacy" that your argument brings up.

My argument had no logical fallacy. Not once did I try and argue that God created alcohol so we could get drunk, no more than he created food for us to get fat with or sex for us to be promiscuous with. I stated clearly that as with many other things God gifts us with, we can either use them to His glory or for evil. You’re failure to understand this does not amount to my argument being a logical fallacy in any sense of the definition.

But she would drink grape juice.

Or she wouldn’t drink anything at all. But this is of no concern to us since no where in the story does it talk of pregnant women partaking of the wine Jesus turned from water. So your entire hypothetical is pointless to begin with since it has no scriptural basis.

Well, you answered the allegory yourself. The wine at the wedding represents Jesus blood that He will shed. That's why He tells His mother it's not His time. He was indeed saving the best blood for last. But notice something about this story. The wine Jesus made didn't intoxicate the people further but rather it woke them up. If a drunk at the end of the feast wasn't supposed to know the difference in the quality of the wine being served how were they able to tell Jesus saved the best for last? The wine Jesus gave them caused them to come out of their drunken stupor.

Actually Jesus is referring to it as “not being his time†in the sense that he performs miracles and acts on God’s time table, not on mans. Here’s the story in question to refresh your memory:

1 On the third day there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. 2 Now both Jesus and His disciples were invited to the wedding. 3 And when they ran out of wine, the mother of Jesus said to Him, “They have no wine.â€
4 Jesus said to her, “Woman, what does your concern have to do with Me? My hour has not yet come.â€
5 His mother said to the servants, “Whatever He says to you, do it.â€
6 Now there were set there six waterpots of stone, according to the manner of purification of the Jews, containing twenty or thirty gallons apiece. 7 Jesus said to them, “Fill the waterpots with water.†And they filled them up to the brim. 8 And He said to them, “Draw some out now, and take it to the master of the feast.†And they took it. 9 When the master of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and did not know where it came from (but the servants who had drawn the water knew), the master of the feast called the bridegroom. 10 And he said to him, “Every man at the beginning sets out the good wine, and when the guests have well drunk, then the inferior. You have kept the good wine until now!â€
11 This beginning of signs Jesus did in Cana of Galilee, and manifested His glory; and His disciples believed in Him

It was the Master of the Feast who tested the wine and made the statement. If anyone would know the difference between good and bad wine it would be him, not a drunk guest. Not to mention the fact that I showed in my last posting how the phrase “when the guests have well drunk†refers to drinking alcoholic wine. Unless you’d like to somehow historically prove at Jewish wedding celebrations 2,000 years ago it was custom to serve grape juice and then alcoholic wine. Where in the story does the wine make them “wake-up� You’re just grasping and pulling parts that no where occurred in the story out of thin air. It’s disingenuous and dishonest.

The wine Jesus served woke them up, it did further numb their senses.

Yet absolutely no scriptural evidence supports this claim.

Thank you.

Wow, way to completely avoid answering any of the evidence I cited following that statement.

 

[LaCrum]

No, not at all.

No not at all what? That eating at Burger King is a sin or eating at Burger King in excess which leads to gluttony is a sin?

No, your just bringing up another "logical fallacy" by suggesting that because there won't be alcohol in heaven there any food there because, well, it could be harmful.

I’m not sure that you know what a logical fallacy is. I’m pointing out that your argument has a flaw in its deductive structure and thus your argument is a logical fallacy. I’m making the same argument you are only regard to food to show you how your argument is flawed. Now, I don’t believe that there will not be food in Heaven; I definitely think there will be. And from my studies, I believe the same can be said for wine because there’s no scriptural evidence which leads me to believe otherwise. Either way I could care less if there is or is not alcohol in Heaven.

Because you obviously aren't considering who will be feeding us.

Then if God would be the one providing us with the alcohol, what would be wrong?

 

[RND]

And thus stands my argument that from your reasoning, there will not be food in Heaven either.

Food doesn't destroy the body. Alcohol does. Even small amounts of alcohol destroy brain cells. There won't be any death in heaven and thus brain cells won't die.

[quote:8qkogcuf] I was arguing against a "logical fallacy" that your argument brings up.

My argument had no logical fallacy. Not once did I try and argue that God created alcohol so we could get drunk, no more than he created food for us to get fat with or sex for us to be promiscuous with. I stated clearly that as with many other things God gifts us with, we can either use them to His glory or for evil. You’re failure to understand this does not amount to my argument being a logical fallacy in any sense of the definition. [/quote:8qkogcuf] Your argument is a logical fallacy because your assumption is that God makes alcohol for man to consume.

[quote:8qkogcuf]But she would drink grape juice.

Or she wouldn’t drink anything at all. But this is of no concern to us since no where in the story does it talk of pregnant women partaking of the wine Jesus turned from water. So your entire hypothetical is pointless to begin with since it has no scriptural basis.[/quote:8qkogcuf] The point still has yet to be answered honestly and that's the problem you don't seem to want to address.

[quote:8qkogcuf]Well, you answered the allegory yourself. The wine at the wedding represents Jesus blood that He will shed. That's why He tells His mother it's not His time. He was indeed saving the best blood for last. But notice something about this story. The wine Jesus made didn't intoxicate the people further but rather it woke them up. If a drunk at the end of the feast wasn't supposed to know the difference in the quality of the wine being served how were they able to tell Jesus saved the best for last? The wine Jesus gave them caused them to come out of their drunken stupor.

Actually Jesus is referring to it as “not being his time†in the sense that he performs miracles and acts on God’s time table, not on mans. Here’s the story in question to refresh your memory:[/quote:8qkogcuf] Jesus was referring to the time that His blood would be shed not the time table of when He would do miracles through the Father.

Mar 14:41 And he cometh the third time, and saith unto them, Sleep on now, and take [your] rest: it is enough, the hour is come; behold, the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.

1 On the third day there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. 2 Now both Jesus and His disciples were invited to the wedding. 3 And when they ran out of wine, the mother of Jesus said to Him, “They have no wine.â€
4 Jesus said to her, “Woman, what does your concern have to do with Me? My hour has not yet come.â€
5 His mother said to the servants, “Whatever He says to you, do it.â€
6 Now there were set there six waterpots of stone, according to the manner of purification of the Jews, containing twenty or thirty gallons apiece. 7 Jesus said to them, “Fill the waterpots with water.†And they filled them up to the brim. 8 And He said to them, “Draw some out now, and take it to the master of the feast.†And they took it. 9 When the master of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and did not know where it came from (but the servants who had drawn the water knew), the master of the feast called the bridegroom. 10 And he said to him, “Every man at the beginning sets out the good wine, and when the guests have well drunk, then the inferior. You have kept the good wine until now!â€
11 This beginning of signs Jesus did in Cana of Galilee, and manifested His glory; and His disciples believed in Him

It was the Master of the Feast who tested the wine and made the statement.

And? He knew the best wine was being served last. The allegory is referring to all the blood of the prophets shed prior to this time.

If anyone would know the difference between good and bad wine it would be him, not a drunk guest.

So you think Jesus would have made more alcohol of already drunk guest to stay drunk? Seriously?

Not to mention the fact that I showed in my last posting how the phrase “when the guests have well drunk†refers to drinking alcoholic wine.

No doubt there.

Unless you’d like to somehow historically prove at Jewish wedding celebrations 2,000 years ago it was custom to serve grape juice and then alcoholic wine. Where in the story does the wine make them “wake-up� You’re just grasping and pulling parts that no where occurred in the story out of thin air. It’s disingenuous and dishonest.

Not at all. Think about it. Are men continuously in darkness and drunkeness when they have accepted Christ or do then begin to snap out of these things and become new creatures.

Your argument leads one to believe that the blood of Christ, represented by the wine, leads men to stay as drunks and incoherent to the world around them. That Jesus made more wine so people could stay drunk.

[quote:8qkogcuf]The wine Jesus served woke them up, it did further numb their senses.

Yet absolutely no scriptural evidence supports this claim. [/quote:8qkogcuf] I'd read my Bible a little closer.

[quote:8qkogcuf]Thank you.

Wow, way to completely avoid answering any of the evidence I cited following that statement.[/quote:8qkogcuf] You agreed with me. What more to say.

 

[RND]

No not at all what? That eating at Burger King is a sin or eating at Burger King in excess which leads to gluttony is a sin?

Eating food is a basic necessity for life, drinking alcohol isn't. One will not die if the never drank a drop of alcohol again whereas with food that is a different story.

[quote:3w4ex5yj]No, your just bringing up another "logical fallacy" by suggesting that because there won't be alcohol in heaven there any food there because, well, it could be harmful.

I’m not sure that you know what a logical fallacy is. I’m pointing out that your argument has a flaw in its deductive structure and thus your argument is a logical fallacy.[/quote:3w4ex5yj] You seem to think that one will die if they don't have alcohol to consume. For you, or people that are drunks, that may be true. But no one has ever died from lack of alcohol.

I’m making the same argument you are only regard to food to show you how your argument is flawed.

Um, no your not. One is a necessity for life that can be abused, one is not a necessity for life that can be abused.

Now, I don’t believe that there will not be food in Heaven; I definitely think there will be. And from my studies, I believe the same can be said for wine because there’s no scriptural evidence which leads me to believe otherwise. Either way I could care less if there is or is not alcohol in Heaven.

You could'a fooled me. Frankly I you act disappointed that there won't be alcohol in heaven which seems to stem from trying to justify your behavior on earth now.

[quote:3w4ex5yj]Because you obviously aren't considering who will be feeding us.

Then if God would be the one providing us with the alcohol, what would be wrong?[/quote:3w4ex5yj] Again, God won't be providing alcohol in heaven because it is a substance that leads to iniquity and as we know, iniquity won't raise it's head again.

 

[LaCrum]

Food doesn't destroy the body. Alcohol does. Even small amounts of alcohol destroy brain cells. There won't be any death in heaven and thus brain cells won't die.

Really? Food doesn’t destroy the body? Care to explain then how cardiovascular disease is the number one killer in America if food can’t destroy the body? Just like too much alcohol, too much food prevents the body from working properly.

Your argument is a logical fallacy because your assumption is that God makes alcohol for man to consume.

Again, I’m not sure you know what a logical fallacy is. And yes, I believe God makes alcohol for man to consume just as much as I believe he made food to eat and sex to be pleasurable. However, any of those things taken out of their created context can be used for evil.

The point still has yet to be answered honestly and that's the problem you don't seem to want to address.

But there’s no point in answering the question because this hypothetical does not occur in the story. Now, if John had said, “And the Master of the Feast turned and gave some of the wine to his expecting wife and all the pregnant women rejoicedâ€, then your argument would have some validity, but it doesn’t. How can you not see that this is not applicable?

Jesus was referring to the time that His blood would be shed not the time table of when He would do miracles through the Father.

Mar 14:41 And he cometh the third time, and saith unto them, Sleep on now, and take [your] rest: it is enough, the hour is come; behold, the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.

Your interpretation of the scriptures doesn’t make any sense in reference to the story. Why would Jesus respond to his Mother’s cry of there being no wine at the wedding by saying it wasn’t his time to die yet? The way she asks him means she was expecting him to do something about it. Wouldn’t it logically follow that he would respond that he performs miracles on his Father’s time table and not his own?
What this is symbolic of has to do with the fact that they used pots full of water which were normally used for ceremonial washing, yet Jesus turns it to wine to symbolize that they would no longer need to be cleaned by water, but by his blood.

And? He knew the best wine was being served last. The allegory is referring to all the blood of the prophets shed prior to this time.

Yes, you would serve the good alcoholic wine before you do the bad. It has nothing to do with grape juice.

So you think Jesus would have made more alcohol of already drunk guest to stay drunk? Seriously?

Weddings were one of the most important celebrations in Jewish cultural, and would last the span of a week. So, I wouldn’t jump to the conclusion that Jesus was giving them wine to stay drunk for one night, but rather to provide wine for the remaining days of the celebration. That’s what makes the most sense in the context of the culture.

Not at all. Think about it. Are men continuously in darkness and drunkeness when they have accepted Christ or do then begin to snap out of these things and become new creatures.

Your argument leads one to believe that the blood of Christ, represented by the wine, leads men to stay as drunks and incoherent to the world around them. That Jesus made more wine so people could stay drunk.

Christ is the one who used the symbolism comparing his blood to wine, not me. That’s not what my argument leads one to as all. His blood represents a New Covenenant between man and God, which makes perfect sense considering covenants in the Old Testament were sealed by the cutting of two people, and letting their blood run together in the wine, and then the drinking of the wine. You assumptions show that your knowledge concerning covenants and the use of wine in traditional Jewish culture is very limited.

I'd read my Bible a little closer.

Or you could just provide me with the scriptural evidence you claim exists. It shouldn’t be too hard if it’s there.

You agreed with me. What more to say.

That you are arguing dishonestly when you say that the Greek word for wine in the New Testament also refers to grape juice, which I clearly showed you does not.

Eating food is a basic necessity for life, drinking alcohol isn't. One will not die if the never drank a drop of alcohol again whereas with food that is a different story.

Then why is gluttony a sin?

You seem to think that one will die if they don't have alcohol to consume. For you, or people that are drunks, that may be true. But no one has ever died from lack of alcohol.

Strawman. I never made such a claim nor alluded to such a claim.

Um, no your not. One is a necessity for life that can be abused, one is not a necessity for life that can be abused.

But if we can’t die in Heaven, then food will not be a necessity there since a lack of such won’t kill us.

You could'a fooled me. Frankly I you act disappointed that there won't be alcohol in heaven which seems to stem from trying to justify your behavior on earth now.

And what behaviour may that be? No where in the Bible does it say not to drink alcohol. No where. It only speaks of abusing it.

Again, God won't be providing alcohol in heaven because it is a substance that leads to iniquity and as we know, iniquity won't raise it's head again.

Again we come full circle. Food is a substance that leads to iniquity through gluttony and death. Therefore, since iniquity won’t raise its head again, there will be no food in Heaven.

 

[RND]

Really? Food doesn’t destroy the body? Care to explain then how cardiovascular disease is the number one killer in America if food can’t destroy the body?

Oh sure, people that eat flesh meats that our bodies were never initially designed for have all sorts of health problems. People that eat things God never designed for food have tremendous health problems. Those things should be avoided just as alcohol should.

Just like too much alcohol, too much food prevents the body from working properly.

Nobody ever OD'ed from too many vegetables!

Again, I’m not sure you know what a logical fallacy is. And yes, I believe God makes alcohol for man to consume just as much as I believe he made food to eat and sex to be pleasurable. However, any of those things taken out of their created context can be used for evil.

So in that sense and taking this point to it's logical conclusion we can thus blame God for making the alcohol that got the guy drunk that killed my friend? Really? It's all God's fault because, well, He made the alcohol.

But there’s no point in answering the question because this hypothetical does not occur in the story.

You just don't want to admit that it's a no. Jesus would not give someone alcohol if they were pregnant.

Now, if John had said, “And the Master of the Feast turned and gave some of the wine to his expecting wife and all the pregnant women rejoicedâ€, then your argument would have some validity, but it doesn’t. How can you not see that this is not applicable?

I'm asking you to "think outside of the box" and it is apparent you have no desire to but would rather blame the question as oppose to address the scenario.

Tell me, do you never ask questions about the stories in the Bible that don't have a direct answer available?

[quote:19ksyxcp]Jesus was referring to the time that His blood would be shed not the time table of when He would do miracles through the Father.

Mar 14:41 And he cometh the third time, and saith unto them, Sleep on now, and take [your] rest: it is enough, the hour is come; behold, the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.

Your interpretation of the scriptures doesn’t make any sense in reference to the story.[/quote:19ksyxcp] Um, I'm sorry then you miss it.

Why would Jesus respond to his Mother’s cry of there being no wine at the wedding by saying it wasn’t his time to die yet?

To illustrate His ministry to her of which she herself didn;t even understand.

The way she asks him means she was expecting him to do something about it.

Maybe. How did she know Jesus was going to make wine via a miracle if, as you say, Jesus didn't know He was going to make wine through His father?

Wouldn’t it logically follow that he would respond that he performs miracles on his Father’s time table and not his own?

Again, why would you assume Mary knew Jesus was set to perform a miracle?

What this is symbolic of has to do with the fact that they used pots full of water which were normally used for ceremonial washing,

Six stone pots. Six=the number of man, stone=the heart of man, pots=needing to be washed (Holy Spirit) and filled (man's heart is an empty vessel).

yet Jesus turns it to wine to symbolize that they would no longer need to be cleaned by water, but by his blood.

That man's empty and stoney heart would be filled with His blood (sacrifice, symbol of His love)

[quote:19ksyxcp]And? He knew the best wine was being served last. The allegory is referring to all the blood of the prophets shed prior to this time.

Yes, you would serve the good alcoholic wine before you do the bad. It has nothing to do with grape juice. [/quote:19ksyxcp] The best wine (Jesus' blood) was served last and the wedding reunited man and God. Jesus' blood did not contain sin and as such the wine He made did not contain alcohol (symbol of sin).

[quote:19ksyxcp]So you think Jesus would have made more alcohol of already drunk guest to stay drunk? Seriously?

Weddings were one of the most important celebrations in Jewish cultural, and would last the span of a week. So, I wouldn’t jump to the conclusion that Jesus was giving them wine to stay drunk for one night, but rather to provide wine for the remaining days of the celebration. That’s what makes the most sense in the context of the culture. [/quote:19ksyxcp] The story says they were all "already drunken" meaning they were already inebriated. Your suggestion that Jesus provided another 150 gallons of wine to the party indicates that you think the wine was provided to people that were already drunk. Is this what you really, honestly truly want to believe that Jesus did? BTW, a wine firkin being larger that a normal firkin.

[quote:19ksyxcp]Not at all. Think about it. Are men continuously in darkness and drunkeness when they have accepted Christ or do then begin to snap out of these things and become new creatures.

Your argument leads one to believe that the blood of Christ, represented by the wine, leads men to stay as drunks and incoherent to the world around them. That Jesus made more wine so people could stay drunk.

[/quote:19ksyxcp] No, my argument has always been that Jesus made grape juice, not wine. And yes, I believe that grape juice represents Jesus' blood.

Your the one that believes that alcoholic wine that you believe Jesus provided is equal to His blood.

Christ is the one who used the symbolism comparing his blood to wine, not me.

Which is more reason to understand that it wasn't tainted with sin.

That’s not what my argument leads one to as all. His blood represents a New Covenenant between man and God, which makes perfect sense considering covenants in the Old Testament were sealed by the cutting of two people, and letting their blood run together in the wine, and then the drinking of the wine.

Which you believe is tainted with sin (alcohol).

You assumptions show that your knowledge concerning covenants and the use of wine in traditional Jewish culture is very limited.

I know quite a bit about this. What was in Jewish culture and accepted Christ came to set on edge, not to placate.

[quote:19ksyxcp]I'd read my Bible a little closer.

Or you could just provide me with the scriptural evidence you claim exists. It shouldn’t be too hard if it’s there. [/quote:19ksyxcp] I have given you ample evidence to understand hopefully that Jesus did not provide additional alcohol to a party full of drunk people and that the master was able to "taste and see" that the wine was better than what the had been drinking.

You are so bent on beliving Jesus gave out alcohol to feed your ego of misunderstanding and the fact you like to drink that you can't see the difference.

[quote:19ksyxcp]You agreed with me. What more to say.

That you are arguing dishonestly when you say that the Greek word for wine in the New Testament also refers to grape juice, which I clearly showed you does not. [/quote:19ksyxcp] Nope. "New wine" means just that, freshly juiced. That's why it's put in new bottles because when it ferments it causes gas that can break old bottles.

[quote:19ksyxcp]Eating food is a basic necessity for life, drinking alcohol isn't. One will not die if the never drank a drop of alcohol again whereas with food that is a different story.

Then why is gluttony a sin?[/quote:19ksyxcp] Because it's a form of coveting.

[quote:19ksyxcp]You seem to think that one will die if they don't have alcohol to consume. For you, or people that are drunks, that may be true. But no one has ever died from lack of alcohol.

Strawman. I never made such a claim nor alluded to such a claim. [/quote:19ksyxcp] Your insistence does indeed lead to this alluding.

[quote:19ksyxcp]Um, no your not. One is a necessity for life that can be abused, one is not a necessity for life that can be abused.

But if we can’t die in Heaven, then food will not be a necessity there since a lack of such won’t kill us.[/quote:19ksyxcp] We are being fed by Christ and apparently food is necessary in heaven because Jesus ate fish and honeycomb in His glorified body.

[quote:19ksyxcp]You could'a fooled me. Frankly I you act disappointed that there won't be alcohol in heaven which seems to stem from trying to justify your behavior on earth now.

And what behaviour may that be? No where in the Bible does it say not to drink alcohol. No where. It only speaks of abusing it.[/quote:19ksyxcp] So, even though the very body you have is not yours and it is a gift from God yoy feel you can do with it whatever you want?

[quote:19ksyxcp]Again, God won't be providing alcohol in heaven because it is a substance that leads to iniquity and as we know, iniquity won't raise it's head again.

Again we come full circle. Food is a substance that leads to iniquity through gluttony and death.[/quote:19ksyxcp] No, you've come full circle! Ever professing to learn but never coming to the knowledge of truth! We will be fed from the tree of life and as such we won't be gluttonous. We will be a bunch of Level 6 thinkers that will be occupying heaven.

Therefore, since iniquity won’t raise its head again, there will be no food in Heaven.

There won't be any "sinners" in heaven.

 

[LaCrum]

I'm not going to continue this debate because it's pointless. As I said early, I don't really care if there's alcohol in Heaven or not, and I think your intepretation of the scripture is misguided.

And, like I've always done, I will rely on the Holy Spirit to convict me of my wrong-doings and to lead me to his truths in the Bible.

 

[Pogo]

Well, let me jump back in here with a few comments regarding what I've learned about the science of fermentation.

Living in the 'Bible Belt' here in the Deep South, I just happen to reside in a 'dry' county, surrounded by 'dry' counties. It is a forty something mile drive, one way, for me to legally purchase any form of an alcoholic beverage.

When gasoline rose to over two dollars a gallon, it got VERY expensive for me to simply purchase a bottle of wine. I then accquired the necessary hardware to ferment grapejuice, and make my own wine the 'old world' way, to use in our communion rite.

My studies have led me to understand that it was fermented, alcoholic, wine that Christ used with the Pass Over meal, and therefore His 'Last Supper.' Remember Jesus' command for us to "...this do..."?

After a couple of years now, I have learned much. Such as...

- Grapejuice, even if it has been pasteurized, when exposed to the air in an open (covered with a cheesecloth or similar thin tissue) container, at room temperture, will begin to ferment immediately!

- After only five (5) days at room temperture, the wild yeast spores floating around in the room with the juice, will have consumed ALL of the sugar contained in the juice. Leaving alcohol behind in the juice, while the co2 escapes into the atmosphere.

- This 'new' wine, after only five (5) days, is now as fully alcoholic as it will ever be, using the 'old world' method, as they did in the 1st century, and before!

- However, this fully potent, alcohol wise, 'new wine', is almost always very harsh to one's taste buds when young. Remember such terms as 'aged' and 'vintage' regarding wine? ALL decent commercial wines, even the five or six dollar a bottle, or even box, wines now, are at least aged for one year before they are found on any shelf!

- In the northern hemisphere, where Israel is located, grapes ripen in the fall of the year. Depending on variety, most are harvested in September and October. Since refridgeration, and our modern chemical preservatives wern't availabe in the first century, it is physically imposible for the 'fruit-of-the-vine' used by Christ in His Last Supper during the spring of the year, March/April, to have been anything other than fermented, alcoholic, grapejuice...commonly known then, and today...as WINE!!!

- Additionally, of the four (4) possible options for 'fruit-of-the-vine,' 1) grapes, 2) raisins, 3) fresh squeezed grapejuice, and 4) fermented, alcoholic, grapejuice, also known as wine...only WINE is free of leaven! Once all of the sugar is consumed, the leaven dies, and is then removed during the bottling process! Grapes, raisins, and unfermented grapejuice are covered with, and full of yeast spores (leaven). Only WINE is FREE of leaven, and therefore suitable for use on the Lord's Table!

BTW - LaCrum...my Sister in Christ...In my view you are dead on correct in your interpretations of the Scriptures regarding alcohol!!! God Bless you for having the strength to share this truth, and then stand your ground, with we members of this forum!

In Christ,

Pogo