Is it a SIN???

[dawgs10]

and there are many more translations as well. most of them saying have drunk well, or are to full to care. only a very small amount of translations say they were drunk. by listing this you have proved my point.

[Russell Roberts]

My argument remains, that based on word usage, your argument doesn't hold water.

In each and every occurrence of the Greek word, the word is DRUNK.

I have absolutely NOT proved your point. I have proved only that there are other possible translations even if they do reflect a modern day bias against drinking.

You guys have to try to contend that the use of the word 'oinos' varies depending on how YOU want to interpret the text. You haven't exhausted my arguments but as my father says, a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. You will not convince me, and I will not convince you. So, there isn't much point in further discussion.

Unless, of course, you would like to discuss another issue.

[dawgs10]

not according to all the commentaries i have listed. it means they drank much. or drink untill full.

[oletimer]

scooter

Russell Roberts wrote:
Scooter, I'm just curious, as a Christian, has it ever crossed your mind that you should forgive not just me, but your enemies? Or does what really makes someone holy just consist in not drinking a beer?


Response: Sure it has. I forgave you in the fact that I didn't look you up.

Should a shepherd forgive a wolf?

Scooter yes he should as soon as he is stopped (as is in the case of a real wolf, as soon as his hide is hung on the wall). What worry me is when poison is spread as truth and we are to set back and accept it as truth. Christ said that He was Truth and the bible says that He knew no sin. To equate Him with sin is denial of His Divinity.

[dawgs10]

there is no more excepted translation than youngs literal translation or the Darby Bible Translation. both are in conflict with strongs in this verse.

[Russell Roberts]

dawgs,

where in the world do you get that?

There is no more accepted translation than the Young's Literal Translation?

What is your statement based on. It is mere conjecture with no support in fact.

[dawgs10]

it is used as much as strong's i should say. so is Darby Bible translation. both are in direct conflict with strongs on this verse. to correct this statement even more they are all widly used and are in conflict with each other.

[Brian]

I see dawg. What do you think they mean by 'well drunk''?

They drank too much grape juice?

This is my understanding to. IMHO there simply would be no need whatsoever to talk about the volume of grape juice consumed. They were at a wedding feast not a how much juice you can drink party.

And I am not advocating consuming alcoholic beverages. I must admit that I have a drink from time to time but I don't really care for it. And I would NEVER ever flaunt any liberty that I may or may not have in the face of someone who may not be so liberated. In fact I go above and beyond the norm to make sure I am of no offence to others. But lets look at that same set of guidelines with other practices. How many of you liberated folks who wear jewelry or makeup or women who cut your hair or men who grow it long or those of us who have tattoos ( i have 3) or piercings.....how many of us give a hoot about offending sister or brother so and so? How many of us care if we dont sing from the blue book anymore? How many go dancing or bowling or the movies or carnivals and couldnt care less who we offend? THATS the point with this piece of it. Some people pick and choose where to be an offence or not because I have heard and read right here on Jude2 people get slammed for there holding to old ways. Where is your not wanting to offend those folks?

[Russell Roberts]

To the pure, all things are pure. And I personally, just had another pure glass of muscadine wine. Quite nice. LOL

[beckrl]

This is my understanding to. IMHO there simply would be no need whatsoever to talk about the volume of grape juice consumed. They were at a wedding feast not a how much juice you can drink party.

Unless they run out of juice, which I believe they did

[Pastorbps]

Poimen still made the point. Russel, you say you have always advocated "moderation." If Jesus gave wine to drunk men then how do you reconcile your position on moderation while at the same time interpreting the "marriage of Cana" incident as Jesus providing wine to drunk men?

I still go back to motivation. A normal NT family had 3 choices to drink. They had water, goat's milk, and wine. No Kool-Aid, Iced Tea, Soft drinks, Flavored waters, energy drinks, sports drinks, fruit juices, etc. They couldn't walk into the supermarket and walk down an entire aisle teeming with various options available year round (Wow are we blessed). They had 3 options and they only had the wine option if they could afford it and they only had that option year round if they stored it until the next harvest and made it last. Yep, the wine they bought could ferment unless the temperature went too low or too high and then it wouldn't, but I don't think the Christians bought it BECAUSE it had an intoxicating affect. That wasn't their motivation.
If they went to the market and the merchant offered them the choice between a fermented, intoxicating wine and a non-intoxicating wine, do you think they would have been wrong to choose the intoxicant? I mean, if they had the choice?
Fermentation was something they had to deal with and they dealt with it by avoiding the intoxicating affect the best they could.
Let's say it like this. If a man offers you a glass of alcohol free wine and then offers you a shot of whiskey to chase it, do you just drink the alcohol free wine or do you take both? I don't see the difference between taking the chaser and choosing an alcoholic beverage over a non-alcoholic version.
Today, we have the option of grape juice or 100 different non-intoxicating drinks versus an intoxicating wine. Why do people justify the choice of an intoxicant? I don't think it can be or should be justified.
I guess it boils down to what a person wants to do?

[one love]

The length that people like you go to in order to find sin where there is none will never cease to amaze me. It hasn't yet anyhow. You will twist scripture to fit your doctrine instead of deriving meaning from the text and forming your doctrine around that.

If you don't want to drink, don't. But don't try to twist the bible in order to support your personal conviction.

love ya Bro but you go to a MUCH FURTHER length to continuously justify the use of alcohol. Just my .02

[one love]

I copied and pasted this but I would be interested in hearing your argument against it.

Now I am looking all of this up in the original greek text so as to try and get the true meaning here. Those words come from a greek word "methusthosin". The greek root word here is "methuo". In Vines Expository Dictionary the first translation is-"to be drunk, is used in John 2:10 in the Passive Voice, and is translated in the P.V.,"have drunk freely"; A.V. "have well drunk". Vines then goes on to clarify the matter by again translating the greek root word "mathuo" and defining it-"signifies to be drunk with wine". It is used to indicate becoming intoxicated in Matt 24:49; Acts 2:15; 1 Cor 11:21; 1 Thess 5:7. The Passive Voice used above indicates that the men who were intoxicated (drunk) were becoming more so.

Assuming you are correct on the meaning of "well drunk", and assuming Christ did indeed make fermented wine (as you intimate), then Christ became a participator in the sin of drunkenness & is proven a false prophet and a fake.

I'll keep the sinless son of God. You can have the wine-bibbing homie.

[one love]

Scooter, I'm just curious, as a Christian, has it ever crossed your mind that you should forgive not just me, but your enemies? Or does what really makes someone holy just consist in not drinking a beer?

Response: Sure it has. I forgave you in the fact that I didn't look you up.

Should a shepherd forgive a wolf?

Is it in line with Biblical mandate to mark them which cause division? Or do we just forgive and ignore their behavior.

Brothers don't tempt others or flaunt liberties which might cause another to stumble or at least they shouldn't.

Forgive? Sure. I won't mention it again. Consider yourself forgiven, even though you didn't blink, to my knowledge, at calling me a liar over saying Jesus was not a winebibber or a drunk, or that there were different kinds of wine, or that wine was a common/staple beverage of Biblical times.

Allow you to go unchecked in your crusade to equate all who teach Biblical moderation or abstention to Pharisees? Never.

Wow great Post..... I need not type anything else, You Poimen and Dawgs have said it well.

[ImaPK]

Yall crack me up. Near-Beer, Apple Beer, Non-alcohol Champagne, and many more. I can drink these all day and NEVER get drunk. Do you honestly believe that these are something new? If yall want to drink... DRINK! If you don't...DON'T! God knows your heart and you don't need ANY scriptures to justify your position one way or the other. Just live your life and quit JUDGING...ain't your job. Saw many a drunk "christian" and "minister" at Mary's Lounge in Cleveland during the week of the Assembly. Did I judge them? Nope. Most of the time I just laughed. If you want to drink in moderation Russell or get "snot slinging" drunk that's your call. But don't try to ease any guilt by "seeking approval" from those who don't by trying to use scripture. Man up and say you drink on occasion. I couldn't justify using drugs "just because the Bible doesn't have anything SPECIFIC against it". So don't "cop out" to an occasional drink(or twelve) by saying the Bible says it's ok just because "the Bible says...". I always believed that if you have to seek justification for something you do then you must feel guilty about doing it.