Featured Baptist School Loses Third of Faculty

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

Ann,

Get a dictionary and learn what fermentation is. The yeast/leaven is not killed off during the process of fermentation. The yeast/leaven consumes the sugar and turns it into carbon dioxide and alcohol.

Here is a link from a site that sells home wine & beer making supplies...it explains very simply what wine fermentation is:

Fermented fruit is rotten/dead fruit!

 

I have to do some reaserch on this but to be fair to what Ann has said I found this;
http://dshortt.homestead.com/Wine_or_Grape_Juice_in_the_Lord_s_Supper_Simmons.htm
I think one of the misconceptions is that fermented wine of today is the same as the old wine or sour wine of the bible. It is not.

Any other study would be welcomed.

 

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

There does however need to be a clarification made here. The wine mentioned in the bible is absolutely nothing like the wine of today. Our wine today has from 12 to 13.5 percent alcohol and back then before it was cut with water at best it had around 5 percent. Then they would cut it with water and add honey to make it drinkable because it was sour. The wine of today would be what the bible calls strong drink and warned against drinking it at all.
The wine that the Jews used for their religious practices as well as personal use was diluted normally 4 to 5 times and as much as 20 according to Josephus which would have rendered it someplace around .5 to 1 percent alcohol content on average to as low as .25 if cut 20 times.

The wine today is made from an industrial process and the wine back then came from grape juice souring and being cut. So in fact while it may very well have had alcohol in it, it was so diluted that there was no possible way to have any influence in the person when used for religious ceremonies or even personal use unless extremely abused, lingered long at.
So because of this no one who is being honest with scripture can justify drinking what is sold in stores today and claim that God approves as it is all strong drink.
So for this discussion that school made the proper call, calling the staff back to biblical principles, and it unintentionally weeded out some who were in rebellion making it a double blessing.

 

I would point out a couple things. First the only place in the bible where it looks like drinking strong drink is acceptable is in the Deut 14 passage you pointed to in one verse about the tithe and it reads;
[SIZE=+0]And thou shalt bestow that money for whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatsoever thy soul desireth: and thou shalt eat there before the LORD thy God, and thou shalt rejoice, thou, and thine household, [/SIZE]

Keep in mind that Hebrew is very difficult to translate and does not always come across well into the English not to mention that the mentioned practice is so different then what we see in other places it raises questions if we are understanding what is going on.
Second which raises a flag about that passage and building a belief on it is that it is the only passage in the whole bible that sounds like strong drink is acceptable. Every other passage and there are over 15 of them warns against it. The only exception being for someone who is dying to help wiht pain.
Third every person in the bible who was to be set apart for service was not to touch strong drink. If we are set apart in our hearts I think we should follow the same. Just because something tastes good is not reason to use it when we have all the warnings against it.
So like I said that school did a good thing and in doing it they got rid of some rebellious people.

 

Yep, it is both a sinful motive and any in taking, no matter the amount or purpose - to toxify the body in some way. We are not to mistreat the body.

The Deut. passage is in no way giving the modern man permission to drink wine. NNE fulfills the conditions the passage sets forth, therefore the permission is invalid not only for personal use but also because the medical usage is no longer necessary.

Why would you think that? There is no "proof" that the wine of the last supper contained an intoxicant, nor that Jesus would violate his own Word being the very Word of God.

He cannot state that "win is a mocker" and in the same passage "strong drink is raging" and then support the use and even provide that which would cause someone to mock and rage.

Christ cannot have remained the absolute pure lamb without spot, blemish, or disqualifying attribute and partaken of any substance in which the very purpose of that substance is to be deceitful.

The only permission given in Scriptures for a believer (for believers are not ones that lack hope) is under doctor authority. Although never stating it, Dr. Luke traveling with Paul would most likely have suggested the temporary remedy for Tim's stomach problems.

 

Took the liberty of looking up the word "lees".

From etymonline.com
lees Look up lees at Dictionary.com

late 14c., from O.Fr. lies, plural of lie "sediment," probably from Celtic (cf. O.Ir. lige "a bed, a lying"), from PIE root *legh- "to lie" (see lie (v.2)).
mother of pearl Look up mother of pearl at Dictionary.com

1510, translating M.L. mater perlarum, with the first element perhaps connected in popular imagination with obsolete mother "a thick substance concreting in liquors; the lees or scum concreted" [Johnson], which is from the root of mud.
feces Look up feces at Dictionary.com

also faeces, c.1400, "dregs," from L. faeces "sediment, dregs," pl. of faex (gen. faecis) "grounds, sediment, lees, dregs," of unknown origin. Specific sense of "human excrement" is from 1630s.
dregs Look up dregs at Dictionary.com

c.1300 (implied in surname Dryngedregges), from O.N. dregg "sediment," from P.Gmc. *drag- (cf. O.H.G. trestir, Ger. Trester "grapeskins, husks"), from PIE *dher- (1) "to make muddy." Replaced O.E. cognate dræst, dærst "dregs, lees." Figurative use is from 1530s.
stale (adj.) Look up stale at Dictionary.com

c.1300, "freed from dregs or lees" (of ale, wine, etc.), i.e. "having stood long enough to clear," cognate with M.Du. stel "stale" (of beer), and probably ultimately from P.Gmc. base *sta- "stand," the source of O.E. standan "to stand," Perhaps via O.Fr. estaler "halt," from Frankish *stal- "position" (see stall (n.1)). The meaning "not fresh" is first recorded late 15c. Figurative sense (of immaterial things) is recorded from 1560s.

Of interest, not one of those definitions mention anything about fermentation.

 

Since that which was drank at the Last Supper is only referred to in the Bible as "fruit of the vine" and "cup", I cannot understand how annsni or anyone else comes to the conclusion that that beverage was alcoholic.

 

Some Thoughts for You in 4 Different Tongues....

只是一个明智的话 [您是号称是]:法官不恐怕你們作出评判。 不管是你法官,也有可能出现,你有什么见不得人的衣柜,等待被显示。

あなたは、 [ふれこみている ] 賢い判断でありませんでした :Ye 傷にちょうど単語と判断しています。 それはあなたが判断することであるものは何でも、あなたがあなたの戸棚の骨格が示されるのを待って、その可能性がある。

אשר אתה professing כדי להיות]: שופט לא אל תדון את חברך עד שתגיע למקומו. מה היא כי אתה שופט, ישנן אפשרויות כי לך יש שלדים בארון שלך, ימתין לכם להיות מוצג.

Μόνο ο νοών νοείτω [που είστε υπερασπίζονται να]: δικαστής δεν διακυβεύει ye να κριθεί. Ό,τι κι αν ήταν αυτό που κρίνετε, υπάρχουν δυνατότητες που έχετε ένοχα μυστικά στην ντουλάπα σας, περιμένοντας να εμφανιστεί.

(מ"ק) שלום (ברכה)
(ש"ע) שלום (שם עברי) :thumbs:

 

Are you trying to impress me or something? It isn't working.

 

...and your point is??

 

It should be noted that just throwing something into Google Translate and copying and pasting the result doesn't usually produce an accurate translation.

 

This part right here may be a huge reason why they have lost personnel: "...drink alcohol in restaurants, stadiums and other public locations."

Who in good conscience would sign such a document if they know that when they participate in communion at their church they will violate their oath to the school? I have not read the entire document but I wonder if they have an allowance for this? What if they know that when they go on a Mediteranian cruise that they will enjoy a glass of wine with their husband in the restaurant? Why should the faculty surrender their conscience to their employer? Hopefully the document addressed this. If not, this seems to be an unthoughtfully crafted 'oath'.

 

Nothing wrong with the oath at all. I commend Shorter for the standard they are setting forth for their students and faculties.

We are to abstain from all appearance of evil.