Is Drinking, Smoking, and Dipping a Sin

Based off of these posts??? Are you sure you want to suggest that common sense is prevailing?

This is getting funnier.

 

I don't believe he could have gotten a good drink from the sponge (and who would have wanted a good drink of vinegar?)

Perhaps I missed (in one of the barbs) where this incident was used as an excuse to drink.

I do think wine in the Bible was fermented. I do believe the wine Jesus made at the wedding was high quality wine. That doesn't mean I'm gonna drink the stuff. I don't even drink cola.

 

In the first Jesus was offered sour wine, or vinegar that was mixed with gall or some type of myrrh (Scripture doesn't say what it was mixed with)

Jesus refused this knowing that he must bare the full brunt of the penalty of the sins of the world by himself with no help from any outside source. (Scripture doesn't say why He refused it)

He would not take anything that would help him to ease the pain that he had to suffer for our sins. (Scripture doesn't state this. He died to atone for sin...not had to endure a specific amount of suffering)

His throat was parched to the extent that he had no power left to speak. (Scripture never implies this, or states this)

He needed to exclaim one more time, in victory, "It is finished." This would be a loud cry, for which he would need to use his vocal chords and thus needed that extra liquid. (Scripture never states this or implies this. It might be a good theory, but it is just that)

The sip of vinegar could be compared to just a taste, a sip, and in no way did he "drink" wine. (Scripture never states he "sipped" or took "just a taste"...it states he received (consumed) it. We are splitting hairs now if we are delving into what actual bodily consumption consists of. Even a taste or sip to clear your throat would mean an acutal alcholic beverage was put into the body)

 

I probably got it from HBSMN's post when he inferred it by saying:

He seems to be inferring that Curtis is using this "soured wine" argument for an excuse to drink along with Jesus turning water to wine. But I may be wrong.

 

This is what I was refuting. And I gave Scripture to show Curtis's false accusations that Jesus drank and created an alcoholic wine.

 

DKH says..."He seems to be inferring that Curtis is using this "soured wine" argument for an excuse to drink along with Jesus turning water to wine. But I may be wrong."


I'm not looking for an excuse to drink. I am stating Christ drank wine, and made wine. I don't drink, and haven't in years. But very far be it from any of us to add to scripture, to say something that was never said. It wasn't grape juice, it was wine. And he apparently had a glass of wine in the incident with the pharisees mentioned earlier. And he may have even raised a glass of wine during his last passover celebration. Scripture calls it wine.

HBSMN, for all yer huffing & puffing, you haven't proved anything.

 

Yes it does. Read again the account given in Mat.27.
Matthew 27:34 They gave him vinegar to drink mingled with gall: and when he had tasted thereof, he would not drink.
Study to show yourself approved unto God, the Bible says.
Now it is your duty to find out what that "gall" means.
Right now, you have the gall to tell me that the Scripture doesn't say that it doesn't say something when it does. Read your Bible!!

Again, study the Scriptures. Compare Scripture with Scripture. The whole Bible was not written into one verse.

1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

He suffered in the flesh, not for some of our sins, but for them all. He had to bear the full penalty himself. This is a matter of theology. Study your Bible.

If Christ did not bare the full penalty himself (if you believe that) then you believe in a religion of works. Salvation is all of Christ. It is not Christ plus drugs. Or Christ plus baptism. Or Christ plus anything. It is Christ alone. Until you put your faith in Christ alone you cannot be saved. He is the author and finisher of our faith; not Christ plus a drug.

He cried "I thirst." Why? Because his throat was parched, obviously. Study your Bible.

This is what he did, and was able to do after he took the vinegar. It is what the vinegar enabled him to do. You don't study your Bible much do you?

Vinegar is not an alcoholic beverage. Why not try and drink a bottle of it sometime.

 

This seems appropriate right about now.

 

The greek for gall (chole) is used in greek poetry to describe POISON...not vinegar. Yes, do study to show thyself approved

Quit talking down to me. Yes, He did suffer for our sins. His death is what atoned for them, though. Fact is Scripture does NOT say why He refused the drink the first time, and your text doesn't support that. Quit eisegeting.

I agree with all of this. Using your logic, however, Christ needed that last little sip of wine to state it was finished. That's Christ plus "last little sip of wine".

Study yours. He didn't cry "I thirst...and have no power left in my dry vocal chords to utter a single word". Please show where Scriptue state He had no power left to speak. More eisegesis (not surprising).

You would think a MODERATOR could leave ad hominems out of a discussion. I do study my Bible. I don't add to it what I want it to say as you have done. I don't see "vinegar" in the text, btw. The greek word you are forcing the word vinegar on simply means a very cheap wine, different than oinos.

Only problem...it wasn't vinegar. You really should take your own advice.

 

Some things which are not sinful in themselves are sinful if they cause your brother to stumble.


Rom 14:15 But if thy brother be grieved with [thy] meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.
Rom 14:16 Let not then your good be evil spoken of:
Rom 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.
Rom 14:18 For he that in these things serveth Christ [is] acceptable to God, and approved of men.
Rom 14:19 Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.
Rom 14:20 For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed [are] pure; but [it is] evil for that man who eateth with offence.
Rom 14:21 [It is] good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor [any thing] whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.

 

Is drinking alcohol a sin? Nowhere in the Bible does it say so. The sale and use of alcohol was never an issue in the churches until the temperence movement in the second half of the 19th Century. In fact, Elijah Craig, founder of Georgetown College and one of the early Baptist preachers on the frontier, is widely credited with inventing Kentucky Bourbon whiskey. Although the true story of bourbon involves a lot more people than Elijah Craig, it is a fact that he was one of the first distillers of whiskey in the Bluegrass region of Kentucky.

Several posters have focused on whether Jesus took sour wine on the cross. Those circumstances can hardly be regarded as "drinking." However, it is true that He turned water into wine at the wedding feast in Cana. The Bible doesn't say whether He drank any of it. Oh, you say it wasn't wine! Then how do we explain that the wedding guests were no longer able to tell good wine from bad wine? Well, maybe they were just satisfied by that time because they had finished a big meal. I think it is downright capricious to think this wasn't alcoholic wine, but there is more . . . .

In Luke 7:33-34, Jesus said: "For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine; and ye say, He hath a devil. The Son of man is come eating and drinking; and ye say, Behold a gluttonous man, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners!" Notice that Jesus contrasted Himself with John who ate no bread and drank no wine. By contrast, He said "the son of man is come eating and drinking." So there you have it. Jesus drank--He said so Himself. If it's all right for Jesus, it's all right for me.

 

You're right. This passage makes no sense at all if the wine was grape juice.

 

Four places in the new testament the word 'nepho' is used. The word nepho means 'abstain from wine'. The Bible commands to abstain from wine.

To claim Jesus drank wine is blasphemous. The Word of God does not say He drank wine. Jesus never said He drank wine. To claim He did is an out and out lie. Jesus only said He came eating and drinking... He did not say He was drinking wine.

He could not drink wine as it was forbidden for kings to drink.

You must only be reading what you want to read, or are blind to the truth. The governor was able to tell that the wine Jesus created was good. Quite the opposite of your claim. The wine was not alcoholic, the taste buds were able to discern the taste. Wine in that day was judged by taste, not alcoholic content.

 

PLease stop saying this! It is not blasphemous and that is a serious charge, not to be taken lightly.
It does not blaspheme a holy God to say that He drank wine, especially since the Bible says so!


But...enough of that.

Hey, Dan, I like your idea about the tablespoon. Of course that is all I can handle at once since I have yet to taste an alchoholic beverage I liked.

As for pipes, I have friends that have them and like them. I do like the smell of them but I don't have one myself.
Now ciggatettes??? THose are nasty!

 

NKJV

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!”

NIV

"Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now."

The meaning here is clear, and the practice lives on even today. People serve the best wine first, and then they bring out inferior wine because people's senses have been dulled by the alcohol and they can't tell the difference. The person (master of the banquet) who said this clearly wasn't drunk, because he could perceive the difference. But the statement makes it clear that they were serving alcoholic wine, otherwise it makes no sense.

 

Yes, the english version called KJV tells us to abstain.

The governor was a servant? Not allowed to drink? If he was not allowed to drink, they would not have given the drink to him. Use your head.

The governor, i.e. ruler of the feast was not a servant. He was in charge of the wedding, not a servant. Why would the servants be serving servants? Use your head.

 

I don't think that is true. The definitions of "nepho" that I have read do not require that it means to abstain in all contexts. In fact, the definition states it can be used figuratively, and does not always mean "abstain from wine" in all contexts. I think some people's constant insistance that it means "abstain from wine" in every single possible context (even thought the definition says it can be used figuratively) is based on preferences against alcohol. More power to ya...I don't really drink myself. But no need to pretend you're a Greek dictionary to impose your extra-biblical rule on others.

I just had deja vu...have we done this before?