(Real) Wine for the communion ?

That was your 'first' mistake, which was to assume I claim not to drink because of a Nazarite vow.

If something is holy what is it?
Is it not to be seperated (specifically seperated unto God) and 'undefiled' (to be without taint or stain - clean)?

 

This is why I think both should be offered -- wine and juice. I saw this done at a Presbyterian church.

 

Then I guess that I misunderstood what you wrote earlier, "It isn't an American view but scriptural. John the Baptist came neither eating nor drinking, the Nazarite (one who devoted themselves to God) was forbidden from coming near it, Timothy (Pauls disciple) would not touch it even though it could help somewhat medicinally. Therefore it is a scripture perspective to abstain if one so chooses."

If that were true then not one would be holy because none are undefiled in some way. The only person who would qualify is Jesus. Seems to me like Jesus turned water into wine and drank wine. Did He do something unholy in doing a miracle?

"For a righteous man falls seven times, and rises again, But the wicked stumble in time of calamity."

 

Yes, you did. The point was that it is not an 'American view' to abstain, but it is a scriptural one and used 'some' points that relate to abstaining from alcohal, as a biblical view.

First, we are believers are called by God - holy. Yet we are to 'live' holy lives.
Second, the contention the wine being alcohalic that was made is unprovable based upon serveral points and strictly specaking, scripture never once states that Jesus 'drank' any wine.

However that aside, it does not matter what I think but what scripture says. In the Nazarite vow 'God' tells the person to stay away from wine and even those things that it is made 'from'. The person is then commanded to maintain being holy all the days of his vow. This 'being holy' in context is directly connected with the preceding passage of staying away from wine, grapes, raisins, ect.. The point was that God was illistrating what was considered holy and unholy, clean or unclean in relation to being devoted to God in these differing issues. And it is why I also used the example that it was forbidden for a priest to drink anything alcoholic of any amount, not just during his duties but God was specific that it included 'before' coming in to perform his duties.

But hey, you quoted the verse thinking I was wrong when in fact it just so happens to make my point

This has absolutely nothing to do with what I am saying. Actaully almost nothing you have posted is relevent to what I am saying.

 

It is mostly an American view of "scripture". While most countries do not consider that view biblical.

Nothing historical is provable. It is a one time event in past tense. So from that point you are correct. One cannot prove God created either.

Just because something is not mentioned does not mean it did not happen.

Jn 21:25, "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written."

In the Nazarite vow 'God' tells the person to stay away from wine and even those things that it is made 'from'. The person is then commanded to maintain being holy all the days of his vow. This 'being holy' in context is directly connected with the preceding passage of staying away from wine, grapes, raisins, etc.. The point was that God was illustrating what was considered holy and unholy, clean or unclean in relation to being devoted to God in these differing issues. And it is why I also used the example that it was forbidden for a priest to drink anything alcoholic of any amount, not just during his duties but God was specific that it included 'before' coming in to perform his duties.[/quote] Since you included wine in using the Nazirite vow to prove your point then include the entire vow which includes not getting a hair cut. The vow was for a limited time not a lifetime.

 

Is a holy man righteous?

 

Not true. At least not from those I know who are overseas. I know Catholics don't but they don't speak for christianity and most of those churches in those other countries do not think the view is 'unbiblical' as you 'claim'.

Well it appears I have a higher view of scripure than just an historic book. I believe scripture 'does' give us all we need to know and those other things that were done that were not written, were things that are already given in some form or another in His word. And yes, I can prove God created

I hear this argument from agnostics and atheists alike quite often. Scripture also never states that Jesus didn't sleep around. Thus using your logic, Jesus must have. Or must He since it is something that fits 'your' personal view?

It is apparent that you aren't actually listening to what I am saying. Stick with what "I" said not with what "you" think I said. If you wish to engage me on what I was saying it would be benifial to go back and read what I said and why I said it. You haven't actaully engaged anything I said in the context I said it. That of itself speaks volumes.

 

God said that believers are holy. Is that a lie?

 

How is it different in America than in Europe, or Asia, or Africa?

 

Then show us how you prove it. Historical accounts are not provable because they are one time past events. Just because I believe all of those historical accounts does not prove God created. I can look around and notice so many things and come to the conclusion that there is a creator but I cannot prove who created them.

You failed to read what I actually wrote rather than reeding into what I wrote. Your assumption is not what I wrote at all. I used your logic against you to show that your logic is flawed.
I actually read the same argument from you, that because the Bible does not say that Jesus drank wine you concluded that he did not. My Bible does say that there were many things He said and did that are not recorded. Do you know what those are? When we know that then we can know what he did and did not do without any doubt.

Am I to assume by your hermeneutic that Jesus never had a bowel movement?

 

They are far from perfect though as you suggested earlier by saying being holy is undefiled.

 

Relative theology is not scripture nor biblical. It is not what one thinks they understand but what God wills.

That is how you would interpret 1 Tim 5:23, "No longer drink water exclusively, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments."

So are you saying that Paul's command to Timothy is a lie and that the Bible is not accurate in that historical account?
================================
From the Southern Baptist scholar A.T. Robertson (who was alive before and after prohibition), who wrote Word Pictures of the NT

Be no longer a drinker of water (mêketi hudropotei).

Present active imperative (prohibition) of hudropoteô, old verb (from hudropotês, water drinker, hudôr, pinô), here only in N.T. Not complete asceticism, but only the need of some wine urged in Timothy's peculiar physical condition (a sort of medical prescription for this case).

But use a little wine (alla ainôi oligôi chrô). Present middle imperative of chraomai with instrumental case. The emphasis is on oligôi (a little).
For thy stomach's sake (dia ton stomachon).

 

What I can't believe is that this issue consumes people to such great degree...

 

Because it's paradoxical to our faith. We have a 200 year tradition of temperance and abstinance. We hold to the Bible as the infallible and perfect word of God. Yet we have those pesky passages about Jesus making and drinking wine. Luke 7:33-34; John 2:3-11. Were it not for our tradition of temperance, they would not be a problem. You would never see this discussion on an Episcopal board because they have no qualms about drinking. They even serve beer and wine at their church fellowship meals.

 

Wow, you really don't like being wrong huh?? You go from one argument in which you concoct in your own mind that was was not even close to my poiny made, and then then change everything up to argue totally irrellevent pointsnbot only seperate from the OP but my own statements as well.

You are laughable at best

 

You are 'supposed' to be a pastor and do not know the differences here??

 

There is nothing realitive concerning where scripture is specific.
God 'wills' we be persuaded in our own minds.

There is no other way one can exegetically render that verse. Timothy would not touch wine even when he already knew of the medicinal benifits it had towards his ailments. Paul even said 'drink no longer only water'.

No, but I will say it is amazing how often you distort scripture to force it into your view. Like here for example, Paul in no sense can be said to be giving Timothy a command to drink because he is in fact urging/asking him to partake of a very small amount to help him.

Yep, this praves my point on two things.
1. It proves Timothy, who was a disciple of Paul, did not drink alcholic berverages and is why Paul encouraged him to take only a small amount for his ailment instead of only water.
And 2. You don't even uberstand my argument.

And since you neither won't and aren't listrning it is friutless and a waste of time to continue.

 

Are you kidding??

The American drinking culture is know for it drunkenness and as such lack of self-control with it. The only other country's culture seen as worse than ours is Russia. Even amoung the youth of other countries like Europe and Asia they find the American lack of self control where alcohal is involed, whether teen or adult, funny or laughable.

This isn't even touching on our own view of it as a sociaty.

 

So that we can bring this back around to the OP I will repost my comment from earlier:

 

You mean like Americans regard drunken Indians as funny or laughable? Having never experienced the cultures of these other countries, I cannot say your observations are wrong.

I have no idea what you mean by this. Our view of what as a society? Use of alcohol? Abuse of alcohol? And what do you perceive this view to be?