CHRIST: Sinless or not?

Come on, Jim you know that NO one has even slightly implied that Jesus ever sinned so why the title?

 

I just want to point out that you are the one who turned this discussion to whether or not Christian can righteously drink wine.

Some of us initially responded without much, if any, reference to the use of wine. Then you responded by giving a three-fold challenge to those who believe Christ drank wine and wanted to know how we would answer before the judgement seat of Christ.

It seems strange that you would now complain about what you initiated!

I want to point out that those who believe Jesus drank wine are not "winos." Your application of the term to Christians who disagree with you is exceptionally insulting. This discussion has NEVER been between those who are alcoholics and those who abstain!

 

As far as I can tell, that's the only sane way to look at it.

It began with circular logic and now it will like end with those who disagree with Jim being labelled, "winos."

Nice.

 

Thank you, Baptist Believer. :applause:

 

Yes, thanks for saying what many of us wanted to say in a much more elegant way.

 

Did Jim ask to close the thread????


I'll drink to that!!!!


Rbell <----tee-totaller (just reminding the humorless, before they think I DID "drink to that!")

 

Is this that thar' "oinos" grape jelly, or Welch's?

OK, OK, I'm not a tee-totaller. Last month, I had a sinus infection, and I took some Nyquil.

But it was CHERRY flavor, not grape...so I'm still saved. :laugh:

 

Good morning Dan.

I was up last night continuing to share the truth as it is written in God's Holy Word. As I am sure you noticed, Conservative did not do any help by twisting the Word as He did. As a matter of fact, He showed how to what extreme those who drink alcohol and those who enorse alcohol will go to to justify it. But God's Word says, 'Thou art inexcusable, O man.'

In answer to your question about me taking a drink, you should already know the answer but I will tell you, 'No, no drink was needed.'

As to taking you up on your offer, I will have to pass. I do not drive anymore due to a debilitating desease. So that offer is impossible from this end. When I leave town and go places, it is very seldom.

Have a good day.

 

What is the point of "proving" that Jesus did not drink the wine at the last supper if it was only grape juice? And why does that have anything to do with Jesus being sinless? Whatever was in the cup, it obviously wasn't sinful to drink it, or Jesus would not have offered it to the disciples as His blood.

 

Stop that Npet, don't confuse our abstinate brother here with the facts

Wait, my spell check doesn't like the word abstinate says it isn't a word, says closest word is "obstinate"
Hmmm

 

Hebrews 4:14, 15.
Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. For we have not a high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

_______________

Enough said!

__________
As for alcohol or no alcohol: I believe the scripture is clear regarding sobriety. However, 'wine' is mentioned for times of grief, times of merriment, and for sickness, and also for foolishness, such as the debate as to whether wine is alcoholic or not. In Biblical times, regarding the crushing of the grapes on, there is introduction of bacteria which include yeast which begins multiplying unless it is chilled immediately. Yeast produce alcohol as a waste product. It is likely that fresh milled grape juice, until the yeast is destroyed by boiling or other preserving processes, contains an infintesimal amount of alcohol, but not enough when fresh for one to become inebriated. The development of alcohol is time and process dependant. The alcohol of ancient times lacked the intensity processes of modern wine making to make the alcohol content stronger therefore it is likely that table wine sold today has more alcohol content than the fermented wines of ancient era. Anyway, I seriously doubt there is little advantage for grape juice or orange juice, for that matter (that has absolutely no alcohol), to console a person in grief, or stablize a digestive cramping, or assist one to sleep when one has insomnia. To call such uses as 'sin' I'd be hard pressed to condem others, when I will take a pill prescribed by my doctor, knowing that every medication has side effects, and more importantly, in some individuals serious and toxic reactions: and almost all have a lethal dose.

There are somethings which are outright sin: No Biblical support for debate on adultry or fornication. There are some areas not so clear where it is possible that 'sin is what you make it to be'. Whatever is not of faith is sin: therefore if doing a thing causes one to doubt it should be a red flag.....to check with God, is it his will or is it sin?

The wine Jesus made at the banquet is no doubt unfermented: He would not make a wine/juice containing decay. The 'fruit of the vine' which we will drink in heaven, is not fermented. There is no decay in heaven. But the wine drank until Jesus turned the water into wine, may or may not have had some low amount of alcohol present, as far as I know---I wasn't there with a chemistry lab.

In the body of Christ we must exercise sensitivity and caution: The Bible supports sobriety and moderation and there is plenty of ammo to use to exhort ourselves and others against the use of alcohol. It is a toxin to the system: It is also an antiseptic to a wound. It is a depressant for someone emotionally inconsolable or to a spastic bowel. It is a relaxant to the muscles of the body. Therefore, while exhorting against its use, as it can make a dependance and bondage, I would be hesitant to put another person, Christian or not, on the defensive regarding their use and liberty without first knowing if God's will is in my speech.

A good rule of thumb is, if there is anyone (God or man) that one would be ashamed of saying or doing in such and such a manner...... perhaps a wise person would consider the appropriateness of such action at all: I might not be ashamed to sip some wine in the privacy of my home..... but how would I feel with the alcoholic at my table, or the person who I witnessed to about Christ, latter see my grocery cart with a 6 pack of beer? Though I may feel comfortable in my liberty, have I caused a brother to stumble: have I cause another to question the sincerity of my faith and judge my LORD by my actions?
--------------
Peace.

 

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you recognized Peter's words that "These men are not drunken, as ye suppose" in Acts 2 as Scripture. The Scripture clearly shows that they supposed the Apostles were drunk on New Wine.

You must be using a different Bible than I am. I think we've solved the whole problem.

Michael

 

We'll never know for sure, since he refuses to tell us which Concordance...er, I mean, which Greek New Testament he uses.

 

Do you think that the bread miraculously created in the feedings of the crowds was leavened or unleavened? Do you really think the boy's lunch was fish and unleavened bread? The fact that at Passover, the house had to be cleansed of leaven indicated that normal, everyday bread was leavened. So when Jesus multiplied the loaves (creation was involved), he produced bread that had the properties of bread produced by "decay."

In the same way, Jesus produced wine that had the same properties as wine made from "decay."

And in the same way, those whose bodies Jesus healed or resurrected continued with the process of aging and eventually died.

I think your presupposition that "Jesus would never have made something containing decay" is biblically flawed, although I'm sure it sounds really nice when shouted from the pulpit.

 

It's a little hard to get around a statement as clear as, "Don't tell me my Greek New Testament is wrong. I'm using the Received Text it came from" when it's proven that he was not using said Received Text at all.

It's also a little hard to get around a statement as clear as, "These men are not drunken, as ye suppose" in order to argue that they really supposed no such thing, in order to further argue that it's impossible to get drunk on new wine.

Michael

 

oops! I forgot

erasing my remarks *blushing*

 

Yes, Acts 2:13 really is the clincher, it clearly says that new wine gets you drunk. Or does it?

 

It does not. The 'others' that were mocking were saying 'That new wine you and your fellows drink has gotten you drunk.'

Peter refuted their accusations when He sated 'These men are not drunken as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.

The men were accusing the new wine of being an intoxicating drink when in reality, it was not.