Is Drinking, Smoking, and Dipping a Sin

from Albert Barnes

 

I must start by saying that I am in agreement with you but I am compeled to ask you a few questions:

Is it a sin to:
Eat a ham sandwich or a Pork Hot Dog?
Drink Coke or Pepsi?
Enjoy fried chicken in vegetable oil?
Any dessert with processed sugars?
Eat a peach that was sprayed with pesticides?
Use prescription medications such as cortizone?
Drink tap water?
Etc., Etc., Etc.

All the above have been scientifically tested and found that they indeed could cause cancer and other significant health problems too. Would there be any difference?

 

People who claim to have some special knowledge of "THE Truth"(TM) are the most scary of all.

 

All who are saved have the truth MP, others refuse to hear it.

 

Let he who is without sin throw the first stone.

**Insult removed**

 

Not without sin, but without alcohol... as God's Word commands His people to be.

 

I'd say it's kinda hard to "drink" from a sponge, personally.

Ed

 

Good one, saturneptune! :laugh:

Ed

 

Not getting into this aside for some obvious comments, but let me be one of the first to welcome you to the BB, anyway.

Hope you've got handy your Bible, hardhat, asbestos suit, and - wait a minute- asbestos causes cancer, so skip that last bit!

Ed

 

HBSMN,

Still seeking a reply.

 

There is no way to demonstrate that "nepho" means to strictly abstain from alcohol in all contexts. Anyone who simply says that is what it means is running off personal preference and not biblical evidence. There may be plenty of evidence to suggest it is wise to avoid alcohol, but not that the Bible strictly forbids any consumption of it. The N.T. usage of that word in its contexts is not talking about taking a drink, but remaining sober (ie. not drunk), calm, and collected in your spirit. So please, no more blanket statements such as "the Bible clearly forbids alcohol because it says nepho 4 times". It is silly.

 

I have Albert Barnes' commentary. That doesn't change the fact that in the septuagint translation of the OT, chole is used to translate the Hebrew word for poison (rosh). It's my theory the soldiers were trying to end His life earlier than Christ would have, and Christ would have none of it. He laid His life down...He wasn't going to allow any kind of poison to end His life. I think it was a last ditch effort by satan to defeat Christ by throwing a monkey wrench in God's plan. Scripture doesn't say why He refused it, but if He thirsted, it would have made no sense in refusing it, other than there had to be something in it besides the wine that would make Him refuse it. I have an Aunt that drinks vinegar, and my wife loves it, so that in itself would not make someone refuse it especially if they were as thirsty, and needed the liquid to speak as you stated.

 

You seem to be very much confused. Indeed the Greek word in chloe. But what has that got to do with the Septuagint? Nothing! The Septuagint was a Greek translation of the Hebrew OT Scriptures done ca. 250 B.C. It wasn't even a good translation at that. So you are taking a Greek word translated from a Hebrew word back into Greek again, and used in a Hebrew OT context. It is not the same context for the OT is solely the OT. You are far off base here. This is truly eisigesis on your part. A good part of ascertaining a definition of a word comes from the context that the word is used in, and the OT is not the context. A second rule in defining the word is the historical setting that the word is used in. What was this substance used for, and what did it usually contain at that time in history (not 800 years before that time). Barnes explains what it was and was composed of at that time in history, and how it was used. You can't insert an OT definition into a NT context.

 

I'm sorry, but you seem to be confused. You are trying to tell me that gall is always vinegar. Not so, as I have shown.

What have I eisegeted? I simply gave another meaning of gall to yours. I feel poison or something similar is what was mixed with the wine, you state it's vinegar. We'll have to agree to disagree on it then.

I know what the sepuagint is, btw. You don't have to talk down to me.

 

We can agree that it was sour wine or vinegar that was given him. But it was given him twice. The first time it was given to him, it was mixed with myrrh, a drug used to numb the senses, dull the pain. Study history here. And look at the Bible, and see what it says.

Mark 15:23 And they gave him to drink wine mingled with myrrh: but he received it not.

 

And that is why there are so many being deceived into believing that it is ok to drink in moderation. They do not thoroughly study the Bible, but take stances on presumptions.

 

myrrh was indeed mixed in with the soured wine (vinegar) to deaden the senses. If senses were dulled, the person would not feel the pain of the crucifixion.

DHK is correct.

 

So the Romans...who just got done beating Christ senseless...scouraged him...beat a crown of thorns into his skull...pounded nails through His hands and feet...and made Him unrecognizable as a human being suddenly got a soft side and tried to help Him deaden the pain a little? YEAH RIGHT! They were trying to kill him and make Him suffer to the utmost. Mixing a poison or myrrh, or whatever into the wine was done with the intent to bring even more harm and death.

 

The Roman soldiers, to a larged degree, were egged on by the Pharisees. It ought to be remembered that it was the Jews that cried out: "Crucify Him! Crucify Him! The other thieves, crucified on either side of Christ did not endure all the public torment and ridicule that Christ did. The Jews brought the added suffering and ridicule to his crucifixion.
And yes there was an element of mercy even in the crucifixion. The custom was to break the legs of "criminal" to expedite the death of the one being crucifiying so that he might not endure suffering for a longer period of time. But when they came to Jesus they saw that he was dead already, thus they didn't have to break his legs. The myrrh was another element of mercy to deaden their senses to pain. Not all the soldiers were without a conscience. The centurion confessed:

Mark 15:39 And when the centurion, which stood over against him, saw that he so cried out, and gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this man was the Son of God.