Featured Drinking

Jesus refused a drink from the cross. That does not mean he never drank. That is, in fact, another tradition taught in error and makes a mockery of the Scripture.

The Jews drank wine. It was real wine. The Seder (Passover) meal involves a few cups of wine. Jesus was a Jew and Hew grew up obedient in a Jewish home. That meant he drank wine. When he was partially through what we call the Last Supper (He would have had at least one cup of wine) He does this:

Mat 26:27 And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you;
Mat 26:28 for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.
Mat 26:29 "But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father's kingdom." (NASB)

Note that at this point in the meal He says will stop drinking wine with them and He will drink it again with them in the kingdom.


So, if you want to be like Jesus...you have to give up the charade that abstaining from alcohol is commanded in Scripture.

 

How are those "laws of the land" working out for our teenagers? They don't! And why don't they? Because they are based on a false premise that it is ok to drink alcohol as long as "we" mature adults create laws to keep it from our children.

Rather than making foolish laws that no teenagers who wish to drink keep, we should teach our children what God really says about alcohol and give them the truth so they may keep God's Word and honor God through love by never touching the stuff.

Teaching children that taking a recreational, mind and mood altering drug is ok is appalling to me and to God and even more appalling is telling then God says it is ok. Very sad, very sad.

 

Teaching a lie never helps anyone. It is not the laws fault people break it.

I agree. It is indeed very sad indeed. I can't understand why you think so lowly of God and His Word.

 

Think about it Mont, who here is really standing for righteousness? You would teach children it is ok to take a recreational drug! How about weed? Is that ok too for recreation? Why not a little snort of coke too?

 

Amen! :thumbs:

 

The one standing for righteosness is the one embracing biblical truth and not the legalistic traditions of man.

 

You're stooping to emotional arguments again. They do not help your cause. You are better than that. I understand your desire to help people live a life free of the pain that alcohol can cause. Do you think you know how to do that better than God?

The Bible is perfect. The Bible is clear. The Bible is God's Word. Teach it clearly and faithfully at all times.

 

100 years ago pot was legal. The campaign against pot was part of the attempt to stir up hatred toward Mexicans and black people.

http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/181675/history-of-marijuana-prohibition-policing-pot-weed-laws/



History of marijuana prohibition: policing pot & weed laws
By Andrew Belonsky 30 days ago
American authorities haven’t been policing pot for very long, only about one hundred years. In fact, colonists were actually required to grow hemp, and we know the Founding Fathers were all about it, and weed was quite fashionable among rich people in the mid-19th century. The drug scare at that point was about opium, not marijuana. But as time went on, and as pharmaceutical cannabis hit the market, states slowly but surely began regulating the drug, which some even called a “poison,” thus laying the groundwork for one of the most organized anti-drug campaigns in American history.


Though there was some political action on the pot front in the 19th century — California lawmakers tried and failed to regulate it alongside opium in 1880, 1885 and 1889 — the real fight against marijuana began around 1911, when states Massachusetts, New York and Maine began enacting their own pot laws. Meanwhile, prohibitionists high on the success of their anti-alcohol crusade began a racist campaign tying marijuana usage to the growing Mexican immigrant population. According to “The Cannabis Companion” author Steven Wishnia, these campaigns helped spread legislation into the West and Southwest.


A fresh, federally-funded wave of marijuana prohibition began in 1930 with founding of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, headed by Harry J. Anslinger, nephew to Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon. Mellon, one of the richest men in the nation, was an investor in DuPont Chemical. DuPont was then developing and patenting a variety of chemicals, including new gasoline additives threatened by hemp-based materials being pursued by Henry Ford. At the same time, newspaper titan William Randolph Hearst realized hemp paper threatened his own business interests, like a logging company that sold product to DuPont, a huge advertiser in his papers.


Many believe these powerful capitalists used their influence to fuel yet another racist campaign against marijuana, which they started called “marihuana” to further tie it to Mexican immigrants. Though naysayers dismiss conspiracies of collusion, Wishnia notes a Hearst paper declared in the mid-1930s, “The fatal marihuana cigarette must be recognized as a DEADLY DRUG, and American children must be PROTECTED AGAINST IT.” Many of the publisher’s other rags wove a similar narrative.

The next decades saw a further convergence of forces in the war on pot. The federal government passed the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act taxing anyone, including doctors, who legally dealt in marijuana. That was one year after the government produced the classic “Reefer Madness.” When the 1937 law was repealed in 1970, the government created new agencies to monitor drug dealers and users. At the same time, state lawmakers were enacting laws of their own, and religious groups preached that the herb would lead to sin and damnation. All three interests — business, political and religious — worked in tandem to demonize the “gate way drug,” and came together to support the 1951 Boggs Act increasing penalties on drug violators.


The 1960s and 1970s changed many Americans’ perception of pot, and usage exploded. In 1969, only 4% told Gallup they had tried pot. In 1973, that number jumped to 12% and then 24% in 1977. As the culture changed, so did federal involvement. Richard Nixon created the DEA in 1973, two years after he launched the “war on drugs” that Ronald and Nancy Reagan championed so hard.

 

186 years ago the word liquor was generic; it meant alcohol, but it also meant any kind of liquid beverage.. including water.

186 years ago, the word wine was also generic; referring to both fermented and non fermented beverages.

Word meanings have changed through the centuries. I have a dictionary from the early 18th Century in which words we consider to be curse words today were not curse words.

 

It is niether a stoop nor an emotional argument, it is the facts of reality. Our teachings have life applicational consequences. Teaching children that recreational drugs are A-ok by God has these obvious and proven consequences, just look at our teens behavor, drunk or high is the end goal, it's not for any other reason.

I choose to take the bible's position on kings and priest abstaining from alcohol and choose to teach the children that God expects His children to live as the kings and priest in Christ that God says we are. As you can see, the argument about wine and was it this or that is a controversey between scholars and Christians. Was Jesus' wine alcohol or was it only juice. Consider God's Word on the CLEAR matter of kings and priest NOT partaking in alcohol and the wine controversey becomes a mute point. Christians are God's kings and priest, therefore, abstain from alcohol or any other mind altering drug for that matter.

 

I gave crystal clear scripture concerning God's kings and priest and God's instructions that they are not to consume alcohol. You can go back and forth on the grape juice verses fermented wine which both sides will bring forth different research to support their position. Look at God's Word concerning kings and priest and the fermented verses juice arguments simply do not matter. God's kings and priest are instructed to abstain from alcohol.

 

Ame and amen!

 

Oh sister! :tonofbricks:

 

Now Ann, your losing your edge, you are looking a bit off balance which is a good thing. I have already said the bible supports medicinal drug use. We are talking about recreation drug use.

You most certainly are sister!

"And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him [be] glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen" (rev 1:6)

We are called to a high calling in Christ. To represent our High Priest here on earth. To set ourselves apart from the common and to be holy ambassadors for Christ.

Now Ann, agian, you know the difference between consuming for recreation and consuming for pain medication. It is right there in the scripture within the same breath verses 4-6 of Proverbs 31.

Jesus said after HIs last supper with His disciples,

"But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom." (Mt 26:29)

Jesus was stepping out of the common and into His Priesthood and Kingship, which we as His disciples are declared His kings and priests with Him. For this cause alone we should abstain from alcohol and teach our children about their position and high calling in Christ.

 

HP: Show us one time positively that Jesus drank fermented wine.

 

John 19:27-30 Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home. After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst. Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a spunge with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop, and put it to his mouth. When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

It wasn't wine that Jesus drank on the cross; it was vinegar.
The first time it was offered, he refused for it was offered as a narcotic mixed with myrrh. It would dumb the senses. But Jesus knew that he had to bore the full pain of the cross, pay the full penalty.

The second time it was vinegar, this time not soaked in myrrh, but perhaps just water. It wasn't used as a narcotic, but only to relieve his parched lips and throat that he might speak aloud this one last time. This is not properly considered a fermented beverage. I wouldn't drink it; would you?

 

Steaver,

Do you not agree that all women Christians are priests in the Lord?

Then you need to tell Paul that he is teaching wrong, because here he teaches not to drink MUCH wine.

Titus 2:3 Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good.

Do you think the Christian deacons are priests in the Lord?

Then you need to tell Paul that he is teaching wrong, because here he teaches deacons not to drink MUCH wine.

1 Timothy 3:8 Deacons, likewise, are to be men worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain.

I hope Steaver does not have the nerve to keep arguing against Paul.

 

Barnes has a good explanation for the "much wine" passages.