Jesus and Wine
- Thread starter Jakob
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
FIRST
In Deut 26:14 wine or yayin can mean fermented or unfermented as in Isa 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 (yayin) in their presses; I have made their vintage shouting to cease."
Fermented wine is not in the presses, the treaders press out grape juice.
As for "shekar" I will cheat and post what another person's research shows and not spend a lot of my time on it:
“or for strong drink,” comes from the word shekar which means “strong drink, intoxicating drink, fermented or intoxicating liquor” (Strong’s #07941)
I’ve been critical of the Strong’s Lexicon in the past for inaccurately defining words despite overwhelming contradictory evidence from other respected commentaries, historical documents, etymological evidence, dictionaries and lexicons; and in this case it must be pointed out again that these definitions are misleading in the Strong’s Concordance/Lexicon.
The adjectives strong & intoxicating in the Strong’s definition for shekar are added descriptors that are not part of the original meaning. For instance, Kitto’s Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature explicitly acknowledges the generic nature ofshekar by stating:
“Shekar is a generic term, including palm-wine and other saccharine beverages, except those prepared from wine [grape juice]. That shechar was made inebriating by being mingled within potent drugs, we have just seen.” (John Kitto, Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature, 1845 edition, vol. 2, p. 953)
Jerome, the translator of the Latin Vulgate (around 400 A.D.) defined shekar as a comprehensive term used for different kinds of fermented drinks, excluding wine (yayin) but the list he gives allows for unfermented drinks! In hisLetter to Nepotian he states:
“Shechar in the Hebrew tongue means every kind of drink which can intoxicate, whether made from grain or from the juice of apple, or when honey-combs are boiled down into a sweet and strange drink, or the fruit of palm pressed into liquor, and when water is coloured and thickened from boiled herbs.” (Jerome, Letter to Nepotian, cited in The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, p. 273)
In his Analytical Concordance of the Bible, Robert Young states that shekar denotes a beverage that is either fermented or unfermented. Under “strong drink” he defines it as “sweet drink” (that which satiates (to fully satisfy) OR intoxicates). It can be either depending on what the drink is.
Several standard English dictionaries* and Bible encyclopedias derive our English words “sugar” and “cider” fromshekar. This connection further establishes that shekar originally denoted a sweet beverage and not necessarily a strong one. This is plainly seen when one looks at the verse in the John Wycliffe 1395 English rendering:
“and thou schalt bie of the same money what euer thing plesith to thee, ethir of droues, ether of scheep; also thou schalt bie wyn, and sidur, and al thing that thi soule desirith; and thou schalt ete bifor thi Lord God, and thou schalt make feeste,”
The WordWeb Online defines sidur as merely being cider and is differentiated from “strong cider” by the Old English “haard”. The W3Dictionary.com defines sidur as “a beverage made from juice pressed from apples”.
*To name some of the dictionaries that show our English “sugar” comes from shekar are the Oxford English Dictionary (1933 edition), the Webster’s New international Dictionary (1959), the A New English Dictionary on Historical Principles (1893), and The New American Encyclopedic Dictionary (1906).
In fact, we find in Isaiah 24:9 that shekar is referring to a sweet beverage. The point of the matter is that shekar being rendered “strong drink” can be misleading for it is not exclusive to fermented drink and thus, strengthened with the overwhelming evidence supplied by other respected translations, lexicons, dictionaries, and ancient literature, I must again state that it is incorrect for the Strong’s lexicon to interpret shekar exclusively as being strong or intoxicating drink.
Regarding shakar in Deuteronomy 14: 26, many translations do translate shakar "strong drink." However, some have "similar drink" (see the New King James). There is obviously an intended distinction being made between the "wine" and "shakar." Clearly a distinction is being made, but what is it? Is God not only allowing intoxicating drink but actually telling them to go buy it when God considers strong drink something concerning which man is to totally avoid (Prov. 23:31)?
I believe the harmonious answer to the distinction between "wine" and "shakar" in Deuteronomy 14:26 is seen in the celebrated scholar Patton's work, Bible Wines, pg.. 62: "Shakar (sometimes written shechar, shekar) signifies sweet drink expressed from fruits other than the grape and drunk in an unfermented or fermented state. It occurs in the Old Testament twenty-three times...." Since God prohibited the unnatural fermentation of juices for simple human intoxication, we must understand shakar in Deuteronomy 14:26 to simply mean unfermented or sweet juices other than juice from grapes; for that type of juice was called specifically yayin. Deuteronomy 14:26, then, would be a case of shakar being used for sweet juice other than juice from the grape ("similar drink," NKJV).
....the word shekar, like yayin, is a generic term which could denote either fermented or unfermented beverages. Due to the above contexts it should be clear that it is the latter (unfermented) which makes the most hermeneutical sense. This is made especially true when learn that shekar originally denoted a sweet beverage which could become bitter when allowed to ferment naturally (Isaiah 24:9).
[The above in blue was posted by "Palehorse" on another forum]
SECOND
Even if Deut 14:26 refers to fermented drinks that does not allow for Christians to drink fermented drinks socially. Christ took all the OT out of the way making in inactive, ineffective, Heb 10:9; Col 2:14. So Christians do not have feasts as Israel did in the OT. Christians must find justification for social drinking within Christ's NT and it's not there.
In Deut 26:14 wine or yayin can mean fermented or unfermented as in Isa 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 (yayin) in their presses; I have made their vintage shouting to cease."
Fermented wine is not in the presses, the treaders press out grape juice.
As for "shekar" I will cheat and post what another person's research shows and not spend a lot of my time on it:
“or for strong drink,” comes from the word shekar which means “strong drink, intoxicating drink, fermented or intoxicating liquor” (Strong’s #07941)
I’ve been critical of the Strong’s Lexicon in the past for inaccurately defining words despite overwhelming contradictory evidence from other respected commentaries, historical documents, etymological evidence, dictionaries and lexicons; and in this case it must be pointed out again that these definitions are misleading in the Strong’s Concordance/Lexicon.
The adjectives strong & intoxicating in the Strong’s definition for shekar are added descriptors that are not part of the original meaning. For instance, Kitto’s Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature explicitly acknowledges the generic nature ofshekar by stating:
“Shekar is a generic term, including palm-wine and other saccharine beverages, except those prepared from wine [grape juice]. That shechar was made inebriating by being mingled within potent drugs, we have just seen.” (John Kitto, Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature, 1845 edition, vol. 2, p. 953)
Jerome, the translator of the Latin Vulgate (around 400 A.D.) defined shekar as a comprehensive term used for different kinds of fermented drinks, excluding wine (yayin) but the list he gives allows for unfermented drinks! In hisLetter to Nepotian he states:
“Shechar in the Hebrew tongue means every kind of drink which can intoxicate, whether made from grain or from the juice of apple, or when honey-combs are boiled down into a sweet and strange drink, or the fruit of palm pressed into liquor, and when water is coloured and thickened from boiled herbs.” (Jerome, Letter to Nepotian, cited in The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, p. 273)
In his Analytical Concordance of the Bible, Robert Young states that shekar denotes a beverage that is either fermented or unfermented. Under “strong drink” he defines it as “sweet drink” (that which satiates (to fully satisfy) OR intoxicates). It can be either depending on what the drink is.
Several standard English dictionaries* and Bible encyclopedias derive our English words “sugar” and “cider” fromshekar. This connection further establishes that shekar originally denoted a sweet beverage and not necessarily a strong one. This is plainly seen when one looks at the verse in the John Wycliffe 1395 English rendering:
“and thou schalt bie of the same money what euer thing plesith to thee, ethir of droues, ether of scheep; also thou schalt bie wyn, and sidur, and al thing that thi soule desirith; and thou schalt ete bifor thi Lord God, and thou schalt make feeste,”
The WordWeb Online defines sidur as merely being cider and is differentiated from “strong cider” by the Old English “haard”. The W3Dictionary.com defines sidur as “a beverage made from juice pressed from apples”.
*To name some of the dictionaries that show our English “sugar” comes from shekar are the Oxford English Dictionary (1933 edition), the Webster’s New international Dictionary (1959), the A New English Dictionary on Historical Principles (1893), and The New American Encyclopedic Dictionary (1906).
In fact, we find in Isaiah 24:9 that shekar is referring to a sweet beverage. The point of the matter is that shekar being rendered “strong drink” can be misleading for it is not exclusive to fermented drink and thus, strengthened with the overwhelming evidence supplied by other respected translations, lexicons, dictionaries, and ancient literature, I must again state that it is incorrect for the Strong’s lexicon to interpret shekar exclusively as being strong or intoxicating drink.
Regarding shakar in Deuteronomy 14: 26, many translations do translate shakar "strong drink." However, some have "similar drink" (see the New King James). There is obviously an intended distinction being made between the "wine" and "shakar." Clearly a distinction is being made, but what is it? Is God not only allowing intoxicating drink but actually telling them to go buy it when God considers strong drink something concerning which man is to totally avoid (Prov. 23:31)?
I believe the harmonious answer to the distinction between "wine" and "shakar" in Deuteronomy 14:26 is seen in the celebrated scholar Patton's work, Bible Wines, pg.. 62: "Shakar (sometimes written shechar, shekar) signifies sweet drink expressed from fruits other than the grape and drunk in an unfermented or fermented state. It occurs in the Old Testament twenty-three times...." Since God prohibited the unnatural fermentation of juices for simple human intoxication, we must understand shakar in Deuteronomy 14:26 to simply mean unfermented or sweet juices other than juice from grapes; for that type of juice was called specifically yayin. Deuteronomy 14:26, then, would be a case of shakar being used for sweet juice other than juice from the grape ("similar drink," NKJV).
....the word shekar, like yayin, is a generic term which could denote either fermented or unfermented beverages. Due to the above contexts it should be clear that it is the latter (unfermented) which makes the most hermeneutical sense. This is made especially true when learn that shekar originally denoted a sweet beverage which could become bitter when allowed to ferment naturally (Isaiah 24:9).
[The above in blue was posted by "Palehorse" on another forum]
SECOND
Even if Deut 14:26 refers to fermented drinks that does not allow for Christians to drink fermented drinks socially. Christ took all the OT out of the way making in inactive, ineffective, Heb 10:9; Col 2:14. So Christians do not have feasts as Israel did in the OT. Christians must find justification for social drinking within Christ's NT and it's not there.
Last edited:
K
You are right drunkenness is a sin, I don't think anybody would disagree with that.
The issue is that having a drink here or there, or even a glass a day by biblical standards is not a drunkard.
Psalms even gives drunkenness one point where it is acceptable, and it says let them drink their sorrows away.
Re: Jesus and Wine: What do you want to force the scriptures to mean.
So you are saying that, contrary to Paul's words, those that consumed all of the bread and wine neither consumed all of the bread nor were any of them drunk off the communion wine. So what happened when they showed up early, was Paul wrong in what they ate and drank, and was he wrong that when others showed up, some were drunk, and others went hungry as a result?
So you are saying that, contrary to Paul's words, those that consumed all of the bread and wine neither consumed all of the bread nor were any of them drunk off the communion wine. So what happened when they showed up early, was Paul wrong in what they ate and drank, and was he wrong that when others showed up, some were drunk, and others went hungry as a result?
Re: Jesus and Wine: What do you want to force the scriptures to mean.
Jesus said that John the Baptist came neither eating bread or drinking wine, and that the religious of the time discredited John the Baptist and his teachings because they said he had a demon. Jesus then said that He came eating and drinking(without restrictions other than not being drunk), and that the religious of His time discredited Him, and His teachings because His actions proved Him to be, in their opinion, a drunkard and a glutton. Didn't Jesus know about drunkenness? Did Jesus not know about causing people to stumble? Did the Son of man not care that His lack of restrictions could cause many people to drink alcohol?
I do understand the religious desire to set strict limits on those in ministry drinking alcohol. Unfortunately, by their beliefs, many people would do the same as the religious leaders of His day, and would claim any such person was unfit to work in their Christian ministry.
Jesus said that John the Baptist came neither eating bread or drinking wine, and that the religious of the time discredited John the Baptist and his teachings because they said he had a demon. Jesus then said that He came eating and drinking(without restrictions other than not being drunk), and that the religious of His time discredited Him, and His teachings because His actions proved Him to be, in their opinion, a drunkard and a glutton. Didn't Jesus know about drunkenness? Did Jesus not know about causing people to stumble? Did the Son of man not care that His lack of restrictions could cause many people to drink alcohol?
I do understand the religious desire to set strict limits on those in ministry drinking alcohol. Unfortunately, by their beliefs, many people would do the same as the religious leaders of His day, and would claim any such person was unfit to work in their Christian ministry.
at what point does Jesus consider one a drunkard? and if a person with a drinking problem (who should be able to look up to you, you should be a shining light to them) if a person with a drinking problem see's or even knows you have one once in a while, and they fall off the wagon, you have caused them to stumble...
K
Re: Jesus and Wine: What do you want to force the scriptures to mean.
So I dont drink,I go with you to a restaurant and have some wine,how much before I will be drunk? How much before I get a buzz? Do think Jesus went around buzzed? How much do you need to drink before you're buzzed,do you know? How much before you're drunk? Alcohol is a drug and should be treated as such.
So I dont drink,I go with you to a restaurant and have some wine,how much before I will be drunk? How much before I get a buzz? Do think Jesus went around buzzed? How much do you need to drink before you're buzzed,do you know? How much before you're drunk? Alcohol is a drug and should be treated as such.
Re: Jesus and Wine: What do you want to force the scriptures to mean.
While I understand that it is your desire to believe that the early Christians did not drink regular wine at the Lords supper, and that the word does not mean drunken, it does appear that the usage is as I claimed. Here are all the places where the word is used. Pick a meaning that fits everywhere the word is used, in the context in which it is found... If you want truth, that is. :
Mat_24:49 and begins[SUP]G757[/SUP] to beat[SUP]G5180[/SUP] his fellow[SUP]G4889[/SUP] slaves[SUP]G4889[/SUP] and eat[SUP]G2068[/SUP] and drink[SUP]G4095[/SUP] with drunkards[SUP]G3184[/SUP];
Joh_2:10 and *said[SUP]G3004[/SUP] to him, "Every[SUP]G3956[/SUP] man[SUP]G444[/SUP] serves[SUP]G5087[/SUP] the good[SUP]G2570[/SUP] wine[SUP]G3631[/SUP] first[SUP]G4413[/SUP], and when[SUP]G3752[/SUP] the people [SUP]R1[/SUP]have [SUP]N1[/SUP]drunk[SUP]G3184[/SUP] freely[SUP]G3184[/SUP], then he serves the poorer[SUP]G1640[/SUP] wine; but you have kept[SUP]G5083[/SUP] the good[SUP]G2570[/SUP] wine[SUP]G3631[/SUP] until[SUP]G2193[/SUP] now[SUP]G737[/SUP]."
Act_2:15 "For these[SUP]G3778[/SUP] men[SUP]G3778[/SUP] are not drunk[SUP]G3184[/SUP], as you suppose[SUP]G5274[/SUP], [SUP]R1[/SUP]for it is only the [SUP]N1[/SUP]third[SUP]G5154[/SUP] hour[SUP]G5610[/SUP] of the day[SUP]G2250[/SUP];
1Co_11:21 for in your eating[SUP]G2068[/SUP] each[SUP]G1538[/SUP] one[SUP]G1538[/SUP] takes[SUP]G4301[/SUP] his own[SUP]G2398[/SUP] supper[SUP]G1173[/SUP] first[SUP]G4301[/SUP]; and one[SUP]G3739 G3303a[/SUP] is hungry[SUP]G3983[/SUP] and [SUP]R1[/SUP]another[SUP]G3739 G1161[/SUP] is drunk[SUP]G3184[/SUP].
1Th_5:7 For those[SUP]G3588[/SUP] who sleep[SUP]G2518[/SUP] do[SUP]G2518[/SUP] their sleeping[SUP]G2518[/SUP] at night[SUP]G3571[/SUP], and those[SUP]G3588[/SUP] who get[SUP]G3182[/SUP] drunk[SUP]G3182[/SUP] get[SUP]G3184[/SUP] [SUP]R1[/SUP]drunk[SUP]G3184[/SUP] at night[SUP]G3571[/SUP].
Rev_17:2 with whom[SUP]G3739[/SUP] [SUP]R1[/SUP]the kings[SUP]G935[/SUP] of the earth[SUP]G1093[/SUP] committed[SUP]G4203[/SUP] acts of immorality[SUP]G4203[/SUP], and [SUP]R2[/SUP]those[SUP]G3588[/SUP] who dwell[SUP]G2730[/SUP] on the earth[SUP]G1093[/SUP] were [SUP]R3[/SUP]made[SUP]G3184[/SUP] drunk[SUP]G3184[/SUP] with the wine[SUP]G3631[/SUP] of her immorality[SUP]G4202[/SUP]."
Rev_17:6 And I saw[SUP]G3708[/SUP] the woman[SUP]G1135[/SUP] drunk[SUP]G3184[/SUP] with [SUP]R1[/SUP]the blood[SUP]G129[/SUP] of the [SUP]N1[/SUP]saints[SUP]G40[/SUP], and with the blood[SUP]G129[/SUP] of the witnesses[SUP]G3144[/SUP] of Jesus[SUP]G2424[/SUP]. When I saw[SUP]G3708[/SUP] her, I wondered[SUP]G2296[/SUP] [SUP]N2[/SUP]greatly[SUP]G2295 G3173[/SUP].
Here’s the Strong’s definition: G3184
μεθύω
methuō
meth-oo'-o
From another form of G3178; to drink to intoxication, that is, get drunk: - drink well, make (be) drunk (-en).
Total KJV occurrences: 7
Here's another one from a different Greek Dictionary:G3184
μεθύωmethuō; from μέθυ methu (wine); to be drunken: - drunk (3), drunk freely (1), drunkards (1), get drunk (1), made drunk (1).
Am I saying that you can't completely change the meaning to fit what you want to believe? Of course not. There are tons of religious groups that do not like consistent meaning and that change the meaning whenever what was said doesn't match what they want to believe. Of course, you then have to accept that the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses ... and ton's of others can hold to their private interpretations as well.
As it stands though, those that showed up early to the Lord's supper and drank all the wine and ate all the bread were drunk, and those that showed up later went hungry. And there is no lambasting of the participants for not using non-alcoholic grape juice.
While I understand that it is your desire to believe that the early Christians did not drink regular wine at the Lords supper, and that the word does not mean drunken, it does appear that the usage is as I claimed. Here are all the places where the word is used. Pick a meaning that fits everywhere the word is used, in the context in which it is found... If you want truth, that is. :
Mat_24:49 and begins[SUP]G757[/SUP] to beat[SUP]G5180[/SUP] his fellow[SUP]G4889[/SUP] slaves[SUP]G4889[/SUP] and eat[SUP]G2068[/SUP] and drink[SUP]G4095[/SUP] with drunkards[SUP]G3184[/SUP];
Joh_2:10 and *said[SUP]G3004[/SUP] to him, "Every[SUP]G3956[/SUP] man[SUP]G444[/SUP] serves[SUP]G5087[/SUP] the good[SUP]G2570[/SUP] wine[SUP]G3631[/SUP] first[SUP]G4413[/SUP], and when[SUP]G3752[/SUP] the people [SUP]R1[/SUP]have [SUP]N1[/SUP]drunk[SUP]G3184[/SUP] freely[SUP]G3184[/SUP], then he serves the poorer[SUP]G1640[/SUP] wine; but you have kept[SUP]G5083[/SUP] the good[SUP]G2570[/SUP] wine[SUP]G3631[/SUP] until[SUP]G2193[/SUP] now[SUP]G737[/SUP]."
Act_2:15 "For these[SUP]G3778[/SUP] men[SUP]G3778[/SUP] are not drunk[SUP]G3184[/SUP], as you suppose[SUP]G5274[/SUP], [SUP]R1[/SUP]for it is only the [SUP]N1[/SUP]third[SUP]G5154[/SUP] hour[SUP]G5610[/SUP] of the day[SUP]G2250[/SUP];
1Co_11:21 for in your eating[SUP]G2068[/SUP] each[SUP]G1538[/SUP] one[SUP]G1538[/SUP] takes[SUP]G4301[/SUP] his own[SUP]G2398[/SUP] supper[SUP]G1173[/SUP] first[SUP]G4301[/SUP]; and one[SUP]G3739 G3303a[/SUP] is hungry[SUP]G3983[/SUP] and [SUP]R1[/SUP]another[SUP]G3739 G1161[/SUP] is drunk[SUP]G3184[/SUP].
1Th_5:7 For those[SUP]G3588[/SUP] who sleep[SUP]G2518[/SUP] do[SUP]G2518[/SUP] their sleeping[SUP]G2518[/SUP] at night[SUP]G3571[/SUP], and those[SUP]G3588[/SUP] who get[SUP]G3182[/SUP] drunk[SUP]G3182[/SUP] get[SUP]G3184[/SUP] [SUP]R1[/SUP]drunk[SUP]G3184[/SUP] at night[SUP]G3571[/SUP].
Rev_17:2 with whom[SUP]G3739[/SUP] [SUP]R1[/SUP]the kings[SUP]G935[/SUP] of the earth[SUP]G1093[/SUP] committed[SUP]G4203[/SUP] acts of immorality[SUP]G4203[/SUP], and [SUP]R2[/SUP]those[SUP]G3588[/SUP] who dwell[SUP]G2730[/SUP] on the earth[SUP]G1093[/SUP] were [SUP]R3[/SUP]made[SUP]G3184[/SUP] drunk[SUP]G3184[/SUP] with the wine[SUP]G3631[/SUP] of her immorality[SUP]G4202[/SUP]."
Rev_17:6 And I saw[SUP]G3708[/SUP] the woman[SUP]G1135[/SUP] drunk[SUP]G3184[/SUP] with [SUP]R1[/SUP]the blood[SUP]G129[/SUP] of the [SUP]N1[/SUP]saints[SUP]G40[/SUP], and with the blood[SUP]G129[/SUP] of the witnesses[SUP]G3144[/SUP] of Jesus[SUP]G2424[/SUP]. When I saw[SUP]G3708[/SUP] her, I wondered[SUP]G2296[/SUP] [SUP]N2[/SUP]greatly[SUP]G2295 G3173[/SUP].
Here’s the Strong’s definition: G3184
μεθύω
methuō
meth-oo'-o
From another form of G3178; to drink to intoxication, that is, get drunk: - drink well, make (be) drunk (-en).
Total KJV occurrences: 7
Here's another one from a different Greek Dictionary:G3184
μεθύωmethuō; from μέθυ methu (wine); to be drunken: - drunk (3), drunk freely (1), drunkards (1), get drunk (1), made drunk (1).
Am I saying that you can't completely change the meaning to fit what you want to believe? Of course not. There are tons of religious groups that do not like consistent meaning and that change the meaning whenever what was said doesn't match what they want to believe. Of course, you then have to accept that the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses ... and ton's of others can hold to their private interpretations as well.
As it stands though, those that showed up early to the Lord's supper and drank all the wine and ate all the bread were drunk, and those that showed up later went hungry. And there is no lambasting of the participants for not using non-alcoholic grape juice.
Discussed this for 107 pages here:
ECT Did Jesus make fermented grape juice or unfermented grape juice? - Theology Online | Christian Forums & More
And discussed this for 77 pages here:
http://christianchat.com/bible-disc...into-unfermented-wine-not-fermented-wine.html
ECT Did Jesus make fermented grape juice or unfermented grape juice? - Theology Online | Christian Forums & More
And discussed this for 77 pages here:
http://christianchat.com/bible-disc...into-unfermented-wine-not-fermented-wine.html
K
Only if you drink in front of them, is the fault of there stumble on you.
If you do it in the privacy of your own house, and not around them who have a problem the only person they can blame is themselves. Just because they know you drink, is not a stumbling block.
It becomes your sin and a stumbling block, if you purposely drink in front of them knowing they have a problem.
If you want to make that just them knowing you drink a stumbling block, then that person will never get out from being under a stumbling block for alcohol is a every day seen item. They will always see it, or hear about it and stumble.
This is not the biblical definition of stumbling. The biblical definition is when you purposely do something to cause somebody to stumble.
The bible has scriptures that make social drinking, few drinks here or there, and even drunkenness in certain situations like I mentioned before. A Psalms says drunkenness is alright when one is doing it to drink away a hardship. Some of the old testament people of God, even had vineyards and drank the wine from it. Noah for instance, his sin was not drinking the alcoholic wine. His sin came when he drank so much that he became naked, exposing himself to his son. His other two sons knew the sin of his nakedness, and did not want that sin to fall on them by seeing, which is why it shows them walking in backwards and covering him up.
what gets me is this: no one is saying that a person with a past problem or anyone who chooses not to drink has to or should. we are saying the Bible does not prohibit alcohol consumption, but drunkenness. I might get in trouble, but here I go: if you want to see the difference between a drunk and someone who has the occasional drink, come and see me ( the 2nd) and my next-door neighbor ( the first)
They are discussion threads just like this one. If discussing the Bible in a thread does not prove anything, then why are you discussing the issue here? I have discussed this issue for 184 pages and offered many Biblical examples and a couple of historical examples to prove my case.
Most of the time, from my experience on discussing this subject, the folks who seem to be more irrational and childish are the ones who defend the alcoholic miracle view. Certainly, this does not help to prove their case. Especially if they are biased towards alcohol.
Most of the time, from my experience on discussing this subject, the folks who seem to be more irrational and childish are the ones who defend the alcoholic miracle view. Certainly, this does not help to prove their case. Especially if they are biased towards alcohol.
Last edited:
For the stumbling crowd, there are those that might stumble if you play cards, watch TV or any movies, who listen to rock music ... there are those that might be tempted to gluttony by your ham sandwich at lunch, and who believe that eating the pork in the sandwich is a sin. I knew a guy who felt that anyone leaving a wallet, purse, any valuables out ... was an almost unbearable temptation. (He's in jail now because someone caused him to stumble.)
The problem is that we are creating meaning that isn't present in the text. People are converting from paganism. They used to believe that the idols were real God's. People at those pagan temples were selling the meat from the temple sacrifices really cheap. Christians who were "mature" i.e knowing good from evil just bought the cheap meat knowing that idols aren't anything at all. The problem is that the new converts really aren't sure. Because they aren't sure, some of them were "testing" these mature Christians by telling them that the meat they were being served was sacrificed to idols.
First, there is no admonition NOT TO BUY MEAT SACRIFICED TO IDOLS. Second there is no admonition NOT TO EAT MEAT SACRIFICED TO IDOLS. Third, even if the person serving the meat might be one of those "weak" Christians, IF THEY DO NOT SAY ANYTHING, eat what is placed before you. THIS IS NOT ABOUT STOPPING EVERYTHING THAT ANYONE MIGHT FIND QUESTIONABLE OR OFFENSIVE.
To apply this to alcohol, go ahead and buy what you want, and imbibe in what you want. (Just as being a glutton with the meat sacrificed to idols is not mentioned, but applies, assume that being drunk applies here as well.) Now, let's change the situation some. You run a halfway house where drunks come to dry out. The Holy Spirit, through you, wins a few of them to the Lord. A year later you decide to have 5 of them over for Thanksgiving dinner. You go to each one of them and ask, "Do you believe drinking alcohol is a sin for you." You get the following answers:
(1) Not only is it a sin for me, it is a sin for any Christian to drink any alcohol at any time, even in cough syrup.
When asked if they would be tempted, in any way, to do what they believe to be sin, they say emphatically, NO!
(3) Yes, drinking any alcohol would be a sin for me, but it is not a sin for anyone else.
(1) No, it's not a sin for me or anyone. I am no longer an addict, and wouldn't mind a glass of red wine. I like Cabernets.
(1) I believe it would be a sin for me to drink, and I am still having struggles.
So what does a Christian do? He does not serve alcohol for thanksgiving. Why? Because there is ONE PERSON who might be tempted to do something they believe to be sin showing up for dinner.
So Thanksgiving comes around and the one person who might have been tempted to do something they believe is sin is sick and can't make it. What do I do? I make sure that I have a nice bottle of burgundy for myself, a white for my wife, and a Cabernet for my other guest.
Apply the same thing to watching movies, playing cards, drinking coffee(Mormon converts) ...
Keep in mind that Jesus said that He came eating and drinking without restrictions (other than He was never drunk), and for this reason the "religious" were claiming that He was a glutton and a drunkard. Jesus didn't care two hoots about the fact that there were some "religious" people discrediting Him over His unrestricted usage of food and drink.
If we are "Christlike", and you are offended that any Christians would ever drink alcohol and would want nothing to do with them, then you can start with Jesus Himself. Then, since those showing up early to the Lord's supper who drank all the wine got drunk, you can discredit everyone in the first century church, including the writers of scripture.
The problem is that we are creating meaning that isn't present in the text. People are converting from paganism. They used to believe that the idols were real God's. People at those pagan temples were selling the meat from the temple sacrifices really cheap. Christians who were "mature" i.e knowing good from evil just bought the cheap meat knowing that idols aren't anything at all. The problem is that the new converts really aren't sure. Because they aren't sure, some of them were "testing" these mature Christians by telling them that the meat they were being served was sacrificed to idols.
First, there is no admonition NOT TO BUY MEAT SACRIFICED TO IDOLS. Second there is no admonition NOT TO EAT MEAT SACRIFICED TO IDOLS. Third, even if the person serving the meat might be one of those "weak" Christians, IF THEY DO NOT SAY ANYTHING, eat what is placed before you. THIS IS NOT ABOUT STOPPING EVERYTHING THAT ANYONE MIGHT FIND QUESTIONABLE OR OFFENSIVE.
To apply this to alcohol, go ahead and buy what you want, and imbibe in what you want. (Just as being a glutton with the meat sacrificed to idols is not mentioned, but applies, assume that being drunk applies here as well.) Now, let's change the situation some. You run a halfway house where drunks come to dry out. The Holy Spirit, through you, wins a few of them to the Lord. A year later you decide to have 5 of them over for Thanksgiving dinner. You go to each one of them and ask, "Do you believe drinking alcohol is a sin for you." You get the following answers:
(1) Not only is it a sin for me, it is a sin for any Christian to drink any alcohol at any time, even in cough syrup.
When asked if they would be tempted, in any way, to do what they believe to be sin, they say emphatically, NO!
(3) Yes, drinking any alcohol would be a sin for me, but it is not a sin for anyone else.
(1) No, it's not a sin for me or anyone. I am no longer an addict, and wouldn't mind a glass of red wine. I like Cabernets.
(1) I believe it would be a sin for me to drink, and I am still having struggles.
So what does a Christian do? He does not serve alcohol for thanksgiving. Why? Because there is ONE PERSON who might be tempted to do something they believe to be sin showing up for dinner.
So Thanksgiving comes around and the one person who might have been tempted to do something they believe is sin is sick and can't make it. What do I do? I make sure that I have a nice bottle of burgundy for myself, a white for my wife, and a Cabernet for my other guest.
Apply the same thing to watching movies, playing cards, drinking coffee(Mormon converts) ...
Keep in mind that Jesus said that He came eating and drinking without restrictions (other than He was never drunk), and for this reason the "religious" were claiming that He was a glutton and a drunkard. Jesus didn't care two hoots about the fact that there were some "religious" people discrediting Him over His unrestricted usage of food and drink.
If we are "Christlike", and you are offended that any Christians would ever drink alcohol and would want nothing to do with them, then you can start with Jesus Himself. Then, since those showing up early to the Lord's supper who drank all the wine got drunk, you can discredit everyone in the first century church, including the writers of scripture.
Re: Jesus and Wine: What do you want to force the scriptures to mean.
Unfortunately your conclusions were not held by Christ who came eating and drinking without any restrictions other than He was not drunk and was not a glutton. Those are His words, and not mine. He drank so much, in comparison to John the Baptist, that the religious of His time were discrediting His words and ministry by claiming what He did as proof of Him being a drunkard.
That those showing up early to the Lord's supper that drank all the communion wine were drunk also shows that the Christians, and Christ, both had a different view of alcohol / wine. We can teach as doctrines the precepts of men, or we can simply state what God says, "DO NOT BE DRUNK." Of course if we add to it God says even our worship is worthless.
Unfortunately your conclusions were not held by Christ who came eating and drinking without any restrictions other than He was not drunk and was not a glutton. Those are His words, and not mine. He drank so much, in comparison to John the Baptist, that the religious of His time were discrediting His words and ministry by claiming what He did as proof of Him being a drunkard.
That those showing up early to the Lord's supper that drank all the communion wine were drunk also shows that the Christians, and Christ, both had a different view of alcohol / wine. We can teach as doctrines the precepts of men, or we can simply state what God says, "DO NOT BE DRUNK." Of course if we add to it God says even our worship is worthless.
Re: Jesus and Wine: What do you want to force the scriptures to mean.
Cranberry juice and Lime-Aid (Minute Maid) is good as well. Over crushed ice. Shaken, not stirred.
Well great minds think alike so we must both be pretty great 
Still disagree on this one but wont beat a dead horse.Cranberry and Sprite anyone?
Still disagree on this one but wont beat a dead horse.Cranberry and Sprite anyone?