Re: Jesus and Wine: What do you want to force the scriptures to mean.
But your interpretation renders Jesus statement a lie. Did He eat without restriction and drink without restriction or not. The Jews knew what He was doing, and Jesus admitted it. He also admitted what John the Baptist was doing. If Jesus only drank fresh grape juice, then the Jews could never make the claim. AND JESUS ISN'T DENYING THAT HE IS DOING WHAT THEY THINK HE IS DOING. HE IS DOING WHAT THEY THINK HE IS DOING. HE SAYS SO. It's just the conclusions and the reasoning that are wrong or it makes no sense at all.
Did you ever drink grape juice? Can I accuse you of being a drunkard for doing so? Do they serve grape juice at the Lord's Supper at your church? Can I accuse you all of being drunkards for doing so? I understand your overwhelming desire to change "Do not be drunk with wine" to "Do not drink any wine". It just isn't in scripture. It is teaching as a doctrine of God the teachings and precepts of men, and it makes, even the best worship experience you have ever had, completely worthless, null, void, without value ...
I know the concept of do not eat, do not drink ... seems to feel like it is the right way to go and that you have a great zeal for God, not wanting to even entertain any semblance of evil. I get it. Whatever is not from faith is sin. It would be a sin for you. DO NOT DRINK ANY ALCOHOL! As yes, for you it is sin. But we can't nullify the teachings of God to hold fast to our traditions brother. We can't force the meaning of the word of God to say what we want. Trust me, I started out where you are. The overwhelming evidence, and the wording Do not be Drunk, throughout the scriptures, instead of do not drink, testifies against this interpretation.
I can see a drunken man from a block away. If I have a glass of wine with dinner, or even two glasses, and you walk in 15 minutes later, you would never know unless you saw the bottle and the glass. Everyone in bible times could see the difference as well. EVERYONE knows what drunkenness looks like. Before I became a Christian, I knew what it felt like as well. Use the interpretation that we can all clearly see, and all of the hearers when Jesus, the apostles and the prophets said the words would have been able to clearly see and point to. A drunkard is a visible thing that the writers could use as an illustration and point to and EVERYONE could recognize. Someone drunk, who was not a drunkard, is easily recognized.
I know people want to "create" other meanings, but, I am sorry. go to the seedy part of town and look for the guy with the brown paper bag who is staggering. There, my friend, is your drunkard. There is your person who is drunk. There is the illustration for the words that EVERYONE would have understood and pictured, (And may have experienced) at the time when the words were written.
In a way, I miss the old days when I felt like I was preventing others from ever getting drunk because I set an example and never drank. I felt better about myself, in part, because I looked down my nose a bit at the less committed Christians in my world. I didn't see it at the time, but I elevated myself by lowering them to "lesser" Christian levels while elevating myself for my beliefs and commitment. I was wrong. I was sinning.
Since then, I learned to love what it says and means more than I love making the text say what I mean. Since my beliefs are no longer what is important, and the truth is, my methodology for going to scripture has changed as well.
To get off the topic for a second, take the word phobos. We get our modern word Phobia from it. Phobos, the root words, is used over 560 times in the New Testament and in the Septuagint(The bible Jesus used). In over 550 of those places every single translator translates the word as some form of "Fear", "Terror" shaking, trembling, losing control of bodily function, gee we are all going to die ... meaning. In some modern translations, the translators have picked the meaning respect, honor ... even though there are two different Greek words for respect or honor already in use in scripture. Sometimes a word for respect or honor is used in the same sentence with the word fear. "Render to whom respect is due, respect, to whom fear, fear ..." The point is this, why do some translators pick respect or honor for the meaning of fear in up to 8 places in scripture when they all agree that in every other place it means fear or terror? Because they do not like the doctrine if the meaning is consistent throughout. What are the places where they make the changes? Look for the doctrines they don't like ... the places where the inconsistencies occur.
"Wives fear your husbands." is one such place. Submit to one another in the Fear of Christ. Do you fear God? I do. I am in terror. You see, the problem isn't with the meaning of the word. the problem is with the understanding. I love Him so much that I want to hold fast to EXACTLY what He says and means in all places without adding any meaning, subtracting any meaning, or distorting any of it to make it fit my beliefs. I love Him so much that being off in the slightest from what He really said and means is a real live fear. Wives are to have this kind of fear. Why? All submission is based on a fear of God. CHrist, who died for you and me, wants it.
Don't change meaning to fit the beliefs. Change the beliefs to fit the meaning.
