Is it a SIN???

[dawgs10]

Poimen,

I guess then, since God equipped us with certain anatomical features that might be misused, he is complicit with sin? Give me a break brother.

and has nothing to do with the misinterpretation of scripture you tried to pass off as proof that Jesus drank wine (as we know it).

[Poimen]

Poimen,

I guess then, since God equipped us with certain anatomical features that might be misused, he is complicit with sin? Give me a break brother.

That's weak brother, and you know it. A better explanation using your analogy would be if Christ were somehow sustaining or assisting us in the misuse of certain anatomical features.

Christ didn't simply provide wine, before hand, to be used for normative consumption. He provided ample wine to those already well drunk, in order to sustain their consumption. Now, if that wine was alcoholic, and if by well drunk is meant that they were actually getting drunk, then Christ aided them in the commission of their sin.

Your position says this wedding party was drinking wine to the point of excess, and thus sin. In fact they drank so much that they needed more, so Christ performs a miracle and provides them with gallons of more intoxicating beverage permitting them to continue their excess. That leads to only one conclusion, Christ became complicit in their drunkenness.

Spin it anyway you like, the conclusion is inescapable to the honest minded reader if drunkenness is the meaning of "well drunk".

[Russell Roberts]

Poimen,

What is weak is your attempt to interpret scripture in a way that conforms to your distorted theology. You should allow scripture to inform your worldview rather than allow your worldview to shape your interpretation of scripture. The idea that the wine was 'non-alcoholic' is a red herring. The real issue is whether moderate consumption of alcohol is a sin.

It isn't. Period. But guys like you like to condemn it, just like the Pharisees condemned Jesus. They called him a winebibber so they could feel holy. I know a woman who likes to tout that 'alcohol has never touched my lips'. You know why? It makes her feel holy. She could justify herself just like the Pharisee in the temple. "I think God that I am not like these other men...drinkers, gluttons..."

But you know what? I know for a FACT that this woman is lying. She doesn't really care about the truth. She has embraced a lie so other people will think she is holy. You guys are all the same Poimen. If it makes you feel holy, don't drink. But quit twisting scriptures to justify condemning people who drink in moderation. Your twisting of scripture makes you guys too easy to spot.

When you cast out the word 'winebibber' as a pejorative, you align yourself with the Pharisees. Honestly, I'd rather get DRUNK.

[dawgs10]

Poimen,

What is weak is your attempt to interpret scripture in a way that conforms to your distorted theology. You should allow scripture to inform your worldview rather than allow your worldview to shape your interpretation of scripture. The idea that the wine was 'non-alcoholic' is a red herring. The real issue is whether moderate consumption of alcohol is a sin.

It isn't. Period. But guys like you like to condemn it. Just like the Pharisees condemned Jesus. They called him a winebibber so they could feel holy. I know a woman who likes to tout that 'alcohol has never touched my lips'. You know why? It makes her feel holy. She could justify herself just like the Pharisee in the temple. "I think God that I am not like these other men...drinkers, gluttons..."

But you know what? I know for a FACT that this woman is lying. She doesn't really care about the truth. She has embraced a lie so other people will think she is holy. You guys are all the same Poimen. If it makes you feel holy, don't drink. But quit twisting scriptures to justify condemning people like the Pharisees loved to do. It makes you too easy to spot.

the scriptures you have used to justify consumption of alchol has been misinterpted based on the greek study bible and commentary. therefore you have twisted scripture.....

[Russell Roberts]

Here is a link to the word

http://www.ulrikp.dk/strongsgreek/03184.html

Next, we will look at ALL the verses where the word occurs in the New Testament. But familiarize yourself with the word first.

[Russell Roberts]

The Greek root word 'Methuo' (Strong's number 3184) appears in the following verses in the New Testament.

Matt. 24:49 and he begins to beat his fellow slaves and to eat and drink with drunkards,

John 2:10 - the verse under consideration.

Acts 2:15 In spite of what you think, these men are not drunk, for it is only nine o’clock in the morning.

I Corinthians 11:21 For when it is time to eat, everyone proceeds with his own supper. One is hungry and another becomes drunk.

I Thess. 5:7 For those who sleep, sleep at night and those who get drunk are drunk at night.

Rev. 17:2 with whom the kings of the earth committed sexual immorality and the earth’s inhabitants got drunk with the wine of her immorality.”

Rev. 17:6 I saw that the woman was drunk with the blood of the saints and the blood of those who testified to Jesus.

In every single instance of the word, it is interpreted as DRUNK.

BUT, I'm sure it must be mistranslated in the one verse you need to twist in order to support your distorted theology.

[Russell Roberts]

Here is your explanation of the word.

"the implication is not that they were getting drunk. it is implying they were drinking alot of what they had. watered down grape juice with a small amount of alcohol to purify the drink."

Now let's substitute YOUR DISTORTED MEANING in the selected verses and see how that works out for you.


Matt. 24:49 and he begins to beat his fellow slaves and to eat and [drink too much grape juice] with [people who drink too much grape juice],

John 2:10 - the verse under consideration.

Acts 2:15 In spite of what you think, these men [did not drink too much grape juice], for it is only nine o’clock in the morning.

I Corinthians 11:21 For when it is time to eat, everyone proceeds with his own supper. One is hungry and another [drinks too much grape juice]

I Thess. 5:7 For those who sleep, sleep at night and those who [drink too much grape juice] are [drinking too much grape juice] at night.

Rev. 17:2 with whom the kings of the earth committed sexual immorality and the earth’s inhabitants [drank too much grape juice] with the wine of her immorality.”

Rev. 17:6 I saw that the woman was [drinking too much grape juice] with the blood of the saints and the blood of those who testified to Jesus.

Well what do you know about that. And all this time we thought that word meant drunk.

[beckrl]

Lets look at it in this sence, Mary wanted Jesus to produce more wine for the guest. The question is why is she concerned? She don't want people to think bad of the family for running out of wine. Not that the guest had become so full and drank all of the wine to the point of intoxication and some how needed more.

But we all should be reminded of this passage Romans 14:17-21

[Russell Roberts]

Now let's see how that works out in the verse under consideration.

2:10 and said to him, “Everyone serves the good wine first, and then the cheaper wine when the guests [have drunk too much grape juice]. You have kept the good wine until now!”

I think not.

The Steward was explaining the custom of WHY people NORMALLY served the good wine FIRST. Notice that he DID NOT say they did it because the important guests showed up first.

It appears that your interpretation is not tenable. Maybe it's time to revise your position.

[dawgs10]

[quote="Russell Roberts"]Now let's see how that works out in the verse under consideration.

2:10 and said to him, “Everyone serves the good wine first, and then the cheaper wine when the guests [have drunk too much grape juice]. You have kept the good wine until now!”

I think not.

The Steward was explaining the custom of WHY people NORMALLY served the good wine FIRST. Notice that he DID NOT say they did it because the important guests showed up first.

It appears that your interpretation is not tenable. Maybe it's time to revise your position.[/quo

please go back to the posts that listed the word in full. you will see a different meaning. and by reading most commentary on this subject you are placing yourself in the minority. sorry, but true.

[Brian]

Here is your explanation of the word.

"the implication is not that they were getting drunk. it is implying they were drinking alot of what they had. watered down grape juice with a small amount of alcohol to purify the drink."

Now let's substitute YOUR DISTORTED MEANING in the selected verses and see how that works out for you.


Matt. 24:49 and he begins to beat his fellow slaves and to eat and [drink too much grape juice] with [people who drink too much grape juice],

John 2:10 - the verse under consideration.


Acts 2:15 In spite of what you think, these men [did not drink too much grape juice], for it is only nine o’clock in the morning.

I Corinthians 11:21 For when it is time to eat, everyone proceeds with his own supper. One is hungry and another [drinks too much grape juice]

I Thess. 5:7 For those who sleep, sleep at night and those who [drink too much grape juice] are [drinking too much grape juice] at night.

Rev. 17:2 with whom the kings of the earth committed sexual immorality and the earth’s inhabitants [drank too much grape juice] with the wine of her immorality.”

Rev. 17:6 I saw that the woman was [drinking too much grape juice] with the blood of the saints and the blood of those who testified to Jesus.

Well what do you know about that. And all this time we thought that word meant drunk.

Too funny Russell. I agree with you here, it is ridiculous to continue the idea of total abstinence when the scriptures do everything BUT convey that!
No reasonable mind can insist on the idea that Jesus was called a winebibber because he had to much welches for dinner! It's asinine!

Everything that was made was made by the hand of Christ (the Word), take Cannabis Sativa for example. True enough that God didnt say to light it up and smoke it, but He is no dummy, He created it with the full foreknowledge that at some point in time some "joe" would spark it up and breathe in the smokie goodness Was God a participant in the sin of that "joe"? (if indeed it's sin to smoke cannabis) I think not. Even though He designed tetrahydrocannabinol (THC, the stuff thats gets you high) He cannot be blaimed for any potential wrongdoing that "joe" may do in the process.

IMHO God didnt tell those wedding party goers to get drunk any more than He told "joe" to smoke a fatty.

[beckrl]

Now I would be assuming that Paul was dealing with this same subject, which he spoke these words;

Romans 14:
10But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
11For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.
12So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.
13Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way.
14I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
15But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.
16Let not then your good be evil spoken of:
17For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.
18For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men.
19Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.
20For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence.
21It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.
22Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.
23And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

[scooter]

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.

Response: What? Like calling people liar when they disagree with your opinion. That's what we need more of; christians that will bite and devour one another to prove that its okay to get drunk.

A personal crusade to rid the church of sobriety. What a noble mission.

[Russell Roberts]

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?

[Poimen]

Russell, brother, you've missed my point, or avoided it. Which, I'm not sure.

My use of the word winbebibber was directed at you inasmuch as your interpretation of the miracle at the wedding in Canna results in Jesus being such. I was intimating that your conclusions aligned you with the Pharisees (oddly enough). I suppose the intimation was too subtle to be clear.

Furthermore, you know that I don't believe that Scripture supports the moderate consumption of intoxicants, including fermented wine, as such. However, in this thread I've made no argument pro or con. In fact, I intended to tell you (just now getting back home) that you could find other passages from which to argue your position much more soundly (whether I agree with it or not). There is no need to force this passage to support your conclusion, when it obviously doesn't.

Furthermore, I didn't malign anything or anyone . Neither did I twist scripture to condemn anyone. Nor am I trying to be, much less feel, more holy than another. I am simply pointing out a serious flaw in your take of this miracle.

As I've told you before, in the final analysis, moderate consumption is between you and God -- but flaunting your liberty at the expense of a weaker Christian's conscience, or for the purpose of being contentious and disruptive, is error.