| Author | Message | ||
     greg_s Intermediate Member Username: greg_s Post Number: 308 Registered: 6-2005 Posted From: 205.188.117.202 |
Title: “A Wine Primer” (Drafted 6/23/06 but based on 1996 research.) (On 12/24/2007 Ex’r Staff et al was changed to a ‘new’ title throughout this article to make it more generic and less offensive to who it is teaching. In other words this ‘new’ title is even more ‘code’ like.) WARNING: This latest series of greg_s posts consists entirely of code (as have all greg_s posts to date). This is according to the Haters definition of code. The Haters definition of code is as follows: Anything said they don’t like. This, coincidentally, is also how Haters have historically established what is an extra-Biblical rule or doctrine. An excellent single source and one of the many excellent sources used in this primer regarding the praise-God-let’s-drink crowds extra-Biblical position is the teachings on wine contained on pages 220-221, 1539-1539 and 1594-1595 of the “The Full Life Study Bible” (now called the “NIV Life in the Spirit Study Bible”). It has been recommended by Haters that before replying/commenting please read and apply the http://www.vandruff.com/art_converse.html link so as not to sound like a moron…this is an excellent article that, we trust many will notice, in itself meets the definition of some forms of conversational terrorism (along with the Hater recommendation for us to read it) as is defined in the recommended piece; if not then we guess the joke was on you. Also, revisit http://www.factnet.org/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?tpc=3&post=195635#POST195635 greg_s post for a review of a very brief treatment of the negative effects of alcohol and drug use on any Christian’s ability to be an example in deed to the unbeliever; although this only applies to Christians that have an example/testimony to damage and/or applies to professing Christians who are concerned about their ability to be an example in deed to the unbeliever. “A WINE PRIMER” CONTINUED BELOW… | ||
| pelfdaddy Advanced Member Username: pelfdaddy Post Number: 970 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 76.211.4.70 |
I can't wait for this, Greg. My catcher's mit is ready for your soft pitch. Go ahead and post your next boring example if ignorant pentecostal trash. Your ignorant adulterous apostle of filth says that one sip of alcohol will send the sipper to a steaming, teeming, ocean of Flames forever and ever and ever. Show us where it says this in your fictional "God's New Testament Law". I want to see a clear prohibition, Greg--not some pentecostal derivative based on the authority of the apostle of cr@p, aka Roger "fat boy" Davis. | ||
| rls Member Username: rls Post Number: 61 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 65.28.108.137 |
Here's a question regarding temperance. If a person doe's drink a little, is that as bad as say, eating too much, often. Luke 7:34The Son of man is come eating and drinking; and ye say, Behold a gluttonous man, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners!KJV What was the pharisees accusing Jesus of being? Look further and you'll see that Jesus was eating and drinking with publicans, and sinners. What was He drinking? Mark 2:15And it came to pass, that, as Jesus sat at meat in his house, many publicans and sinners sat also together with Jesus and his disciples: for there were many, and they followed him. 16And when the scribes and Pharisees saw him eat with publicans and sinners, they said unto his disciples, How is it that he eateth and drinketh with publicans and sinners? 17When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.KJV | ||
| pelfdaddy Advanced Member Username: pelfdaddy Post Number: 974 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 76.211.4.70 |
rls, Now watch how greg, the guy with the bloated head, throw's a goat rope around your references, leads them through a ten-mile labyrinth of alphabet soup, and forces God to say what RW Davis TELLS God to say. | ||
| rls Member Username: rls Post Number: 63 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 65.28.108.137 |
Of course! Give Greg enough rope, he will hang himself spirirtually speaking. To simply speak with Scripture wouldn't be "proper hermeneutics" would it Greg? I could even dig a little deeper into the culture of the era, but would it make a difference to you. No! Because it doesn't fit inside the box that you are in. To even go to the culture of the times, and compare it to today for proper application is actually beyond NTCC. I bet it would give some pause to think concerning our nation's forefathers, who used whiskey, beer, hard cider, and wine within their meals, by recipe, by drink. Oh, yes Greg! The same ones who wrote the Declaration of Independence for these United States. Those same ones who fought for the independence of this Country, were primarily Christian in faith Greg. Real Americans. Yet people like you who are loyalist to their teetotaler organiztion have a hard time with that.  Back then was a different time? How about now Greg. You all who go off on alcohol, (which to me is simply a tool), remind me very much of some of those who are anti something or pro something to an extreme. Paul wrote of temperance. Temperance was not an absolute prohibition, it was simply controlling the use of things. Whether it was eating, sexual relations, the use of alcohol, (in other words don't get falling down drunk), your speech, all of life's everyday things. You will notice that each work of the flesh listed in Galations chapter five if you really think about it, is a wrongful use of something. Not a forbidden use of something. (Message edited by rls on December 26, 2007) (Message edited by rls on December 26, 2007) | ||
| pelfdaddy Advanced Member Username: pelfdaddy Post Number: 982 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 69.208.5.19 |
Well, greg? You are one sorry waste of human flesh. Can't you use a concordance and look up a simple verse? You know the one that says "...the fruit of the Spirit is abstenance from fermaneted drinks..." You can't find it? Wonder why! Your references to the Greek are almost as sick a joke as your pig hillbilly apostle. Neither you nor he nor Jim Ashmore nor any of your kook preachers could translate a single sentence of Greek if it was placed in front of them, could they? Nope! Where is it, punk? If your pig pastor is going to condemn people to hell over something then he ought to be able to prove it, right? No? You mean his apostolic authority qualifies him to tell you arbitrarily "what sin is"? That's what HE says, isn't it greg? You know that's what he says you queer-bait. Davis is evil concentrated. Just add water and you can make fifty pedophile priests. | ||
| bro_derrick Senior Member Username: bro_derrick Post Number: 1971 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 70.196.255.232 |
Pelf, you steaming bowl of rice! Rice-wine that is... 1) I once was asked by Kinson to look up the Greek for Eph 5:18, to hopefully show the conjunctive wherein specifically applied to wine, and NOT to drunk. It does not. I told Kinson, and we just shrugged and moved on with the Pentecostal doctrine anyway... (The Greek is not required to prove the doctrine of Christ anyway) 2) One Bible Study Bible (I forget the name) became instantly famous among us Pentecostals, when he declared that the wine at Cannae couyld not have been fermented, because that would blaspheme the glory of God shown by the miracle, since fermentation is a process of decay rather than life. By this 'science' made doctrine, the use of the Kernel of wheat falling to the ground in death was a bad example of God's glorious work through His Son's... CROSS & DEATH. The point being that fermented wine EXACTLY fits the saving work of Jesus on the cross by who's death many might have life: The fermented wine FIRST dies as grapes before it gives life and GLADNESS as drink! (Psalms 104:15) And so wine, strong wine, was commanded as part of the offering unto the Lord in Numbers 15,18,28. (Which would be even another blasphemy to the above 'scientistific' doctrine.) Thus the work and ministry and glory of Jesus Christ are indeed as wine, by who's death the resurrection comes. So the Christian is not to be drunk with wine but be filled with the Spirit, both of which give gladness to the heart and soul, the one with measure and the other without measure. 3) Indeed Jesus was falsely accused of being drunk with wine, which would have been nonsensical, if He had not been drinking wine at all, even as the charge of gluttony to a man not eating at all... with sinners and publicans! Why even GO to a Jewish publican's home where eating a drinking are considered to be the blessings of the Lord (Which they Scripturally are! (Deut 7:13,11:14,14:22-27)), if you are just going to abstain out of conscience as Lord? Only a blinded Pentecost would be so foolishly disrespectful and holy-high-minded (!) | ||
| pelfdaddy Advanced Member Username: pelfdaddy Post Number: 986 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 76.211.19.11 |
Jesus isn't nearly as holy as Davis. If Davis ever saw Jesus, he would school him on "what sin is", because "it's the pastor's job to TELL people what sin is". Jesus needs to get saved, and Davis is the only one qualified to forgive Jesus of his sins. Steven Hawking can't speak, but Roger Davis CAN!?! There is no justice. | ||
| victorjohanson Senior Member Username: victorjohanson Post Number: 1462 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 66.223.233.130 |
"2) One Bible Study Bible (I forget the name) became instantly famous among us Pentecostals, when he declared that the wine at Cannae couyld not have been fermented, because that would blaspheme the glory of God shown by the miracle, since fermentation is a process of decay rather than life." Not sure where you saw it, but I do remember that argument being advanced by David Wilkerson in his scripture-twisting book, "Sipping Saints." I've still got a copy collecting dust someplace. Much of NTCC's doctrine on alcohol is contained therein. Now that I've escaped that phony guilt trip, I've learned to make some killer mead. Bottoms up! | ||
| granite Intermediate Member Username: granite Post Number: 219 Registered: 4-2006 Posted From: 72.24.207.240 |
Regardless of personal beliefs about the permissibility of moderate amounts of alcoholic beverages or not, churches should not serve fermented wine for communion for various reasons, e.g.: 1. Many people struggle with alcoholism, and that can become a stumblingblock to them. (Rom. 14:13) 2. For medical reasons, pregnant women, in fact all women of childbearing age, should not drink any alcohol (or eat any pork, shellfish, etc.) at all. (Judges 13:3-4, 7, 14) | ||
| victorjohanson Senior Member Username: victorjohanson Post Number: 1463 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 216.67.77.209 |
"Regardless of personal beliefs about the permissibility of moderate amounts of alcoholic beverages or not, churches should not serve fermented wine for communion for various reasons, e.g.: 1. Many people struggle with alcoholism, and that can become a stumblingblock to them. (Rom. 14:13) 2. For medical reasons, pregnant women, in fact all women of childbearing age, should not drink any alcohol (or eat any pork, shellfish, etc.) at all. (Judges 13:3-4, 7, 14)" Les, applying Old Testament instructions (given in a single instance and pertaining specifically to a Nazirite vow) to everyone for all time is quite a stretch. The thimbleful of wine generally imbibed during a communion service is of no consequence to a developing fetus, and Paul said pork and shell fish are, along with every other creature, "good" to eat. Whether a church should use fermented wine is a question to be settled by each local assembly, who are in a position to know and understand the personal issues of its membership. I attended a church which switched from fermented wine in order to accommodate such a one, and some years later we decided (with the agreement of the affected individual, who realized that his problem with alcohol no longer existed) to switch back. No untoward consequences have ensued, and it was well within biblical authority to exercise such liberty. The misnamed "temperence" movement, which insists on total abstinence, is a modern phenomenon; it is well documented that such church luminaries as Martin Luther and John Wesley imbibed these adult beverages without hesitation. Of course we know that all were crossed up compromisers before God raised up RW Davis to set us all straight. I'm not looking for 'NTCC Lite,' with all the same rules delivered in a nicer tone of voice; all the old baggage has to go. | ||
| rls Member Username: rls Post Number: 70 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 65.28.108.137 |
Nyan, (translated from hebrew letters), is wine in Hebrew written in Latin lettering, (or a close approximation since vowels are used mainly for beginners like me, and religious and some political documents). It actually stands for the grape in all of its forms, whether on the vine, or as a dried raisin. It of course does in modern day Hebrew get its use as for alcoholic wine. Whether juice or fermented, (going according to Old Testament standards and local orthodox rabbinic permission), unfermented juice is actually permissible, even though it is the exception rather than the rule in most assemblies concerning wine. No, I'm not Jewish. Even if I was I would be a completed Jew in that I accept Yeshua as the Messiah. | ||
| granite Intermediate Member Username: granite Post Number: 220 Registered: 4-2006 Posted From: 72.24.207.240 |
"The thimbleful of wine generally imbibed during a communion service is of no consequence to a developing fetus." Vic, If you have ever seen the effects of severe fetal alcohol syndrome, it should be enough to make you retract this statement. (Some churches do communion weekly, which would make several dozen fetal "servings.") 'Nuff said. Paul said pork and shell fish are, along with every other creature, "good" to eat. Paul said nothing of the kind. 1 Tim. 4:1-4 is in no way a license to eat the skunk, armadillo or porcupine. The term "every creature" is NOT all-inclusive, because in theory this would also include human flesh! The problem Paul is addressing with Timothy is asceticism, such things as the Catholic instructions to eat no red meat on Friday (who also forbid their priests to marry). Apparently you retain NTCC's same erroneous belief concerning pork and shellfish, and is certainly some of the "old baggage" you spoke of which has to go! http://www.thebiblesays.org/snout.html http://www.gnmagazine.org/booklets/CU/meatdistinctions.htm Just this morning I heard Dr. Ted Broer teaching in Rod Parsley's church on this subject, and he did a most excellent job showing that our bodies have not changed, nor has God's opinion about the hog, and that Jesus ate no pork and he is our example. Isa. 65:2-4, 66:17 www.healthmasters.com Nazirite vows aside, that unique passage in Judges 13 of heavenly instructions to a pregnant woman is a precious message from God for the well-being of both mother and child. While it is not a salvation issue, it is an issue of disease and debility. We are fearfully and wonderfully made, and the commands you dismiss so lightly have not lost any significance or relevance for today. There is still a blessing in it! Samson's strength was supernatural, but there are a number of things mothers can oftentimes ignorantly do that will undermine the health and strength of their offspring, and sometimes even cause miscarriages, such as changing kitty litter boxes, tobacco, and caffeine. Pork, shellfish, and alcohol also definitely belong on that list, as per the divine decree. - Les | ||
| victorjohanson Senior Member Username: victorjohanson Post Number: 1466 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 216.67.70.63 |
"Vic, If you have ever seen the effects..." I have. It's not right. But it didn't happen because an expectant mother wetted her tongue with Mad Dog every Lord's day. And naturally I approve of pregnant women choosing the Welch's. But what say you of research validating the health benefits of moderate consumption of fermented wine? Moderation is the biblical teaching; abstinence is more of an Islamic kind of thing. I'll eat all the porcupine meat I please, and thank God for it too, despite your spin job on Paul's scathing denunciation of those who would command us to abstain, and his simple affirmation that nothing need be refused if received thankfully. Some of the healthiest primitive cultures ever observed thrived on what you label a debilitating diet, and enjoyed near universal freedom from all the degenerative diseases and chronic ills of modern times. Go to www.westonaprice.org and educate yourself. | ||
| granite Intermediate Member Username: granite Post Number: 222 Registered: 4-2006 Posted From: 72.24.207.240 |
The health benefits of moderate alcohol consumption are irrefutable. However, they must be weighed with the risks, particularly to the groups discussed above. Most of those benefits can, however, be obtained from the Welch's (which product was initially marketed for the very purpose of being a communion wine). | ||
| rls New member Username: rls Post Number: 2 Registered: 12-2007 Posted From: 206.138.130.3 |
This is what is commonly referred to as the Noachide, (from the Hebrew, his name was Noach), covenant. Genesis 9 God's Covenant With Noah 1 Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. 2 The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands. 3 Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything. 4 "But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it. 5 And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man. 6 "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man. 7 As for you, be fruitful and increase in number; multiply on the earth and increase upon it." 8 Then God said to Noah and to his sons with him: 9 "I now establish my covenant with you and with your descendants after you 10 and with every living creature that was with you—the birds, the livestock and all the wild animals, all those that came out of the ark with you—every living creature on earth. 11 I establish my covenant with you: Never again will all life be cut off by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth." 12 And God said, "This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all generations to come: 13 I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth. 14 Whenever I bring clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds, 15 I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life. 16 Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth." 17 So God said to Noah, "This is the sign of the covenant I have established between me and all life on the earth." | ||
| rls New member Username: rls Post Number: 3 Registered: 12-2007 Posted From: 206.138.130.2 |
Now this is the covenant given post flood that applies to all of mankind. By the way, we are all descendants of Noah. So, Vic, according to this alone, you could have your porcupine. But, don't eat the quills. I do remember also, that Noah knew which animals were clean, and which weren't. By implication of knowing that, he would sacrifice only a clean animal to God as an offering at the bare minimum of observance. I heard of others who said they would eat clean animals only because of that alone. I eat clean animals per the Bible, as does my family, per the laws of kashrus. There is interesting information out there pro and con concerning that. I base some of my information on The Maker's Diet by Jordan Rubin, who by the way does reference Weston A. Price and his URL. | ||
| victorjohanson New member Username: victorjohanson Post Number: 2 Registered: 12-2007 Posted From: 66.230.112.249 |
"The health benefits of moderate alcohol consumption are irrefutable. However, they must be weighed with the risks, particularly to the groups discussed above." I don't disagree with any of that. "Most of those benefits can, however, be obtained from the Welch's..." It doesn't make glad the heart of man to quite the same degree, though! | ||
| victorjohanson New member Username: victorjohanson Post Number: 3 Registered: 12-2007 Posted From: 66.230.112.249 |
"I base some of my information on The Maker's Diet by Jordan Rubin, who by the way does reference Weston A. Price and his URL." That's interesting; I finished "Restoring Your Digestive Health" by Rubin just the other day. I thought it was quite sound, for the most part, and his personal experience gives him credibility. However, he did state that his abstinence from certain foods was based at least in part on his spiritual beliefs. My spiritual beliefs are that it doesn't matter, but from a standpoint of health one should do as he believes is prudent. That in itself could become a spiritual issue, but it's not the same as some law of Moses commanding us what not to eat. If one's conscience gives him grief, then he already knows what to do. My quarrel is when these personal convictions are somehow given the status of bible doctrine and used to cudgel others. | ||
| rls New member Username: rls Post Number: 5 Registered: 12-2007 Posted From: 206.138.130.2 |
I agree Vic. You're up early for your side of the continent aren't you? | ||
| victorjohanson New member Username: victorjohanson Post Number: 4 Registered: 12-2007 Posted From: 66.230.112.249 |
"You're up early for your side of the continent aren't you?" More like late. Four day weekend; I'll be sleeping in. | ||
| rls New member Username: rls Post Number: 6 Registered: 12-2007 Posted From: 206.138.130.3 |
LOL. I'm on the job. | ||
| mark_g New member Username: mark_g Post Number: 4 Registered: 12-2007 Posted From: 72.201.122.179 |
"I've learned to make some killer mead. Bottoms up!" That's good , Vic. I'm the member of a local Home Brewing Club, and there is a Gentleman that is a member of it that specializes in Mead. I've made some Pale Ales, as well as an IPA or 2, and even a Lager. Right now I haven't had anything for a while because of this medication that I'm on(Vicodan) This summer I'll probably make 10 Gallons of an IPA, or a Pale Ale, since I'm really a "Hophead" at Heart, and Love the smell, as well as the taste of Hops. | ||
| bro_derrick Senior Member Username: bro_derrick Post Number: 1974 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 70.196.84.50 |
1) The only doctrinal and ministerial consideration about alcohol in communion is the matter of not offending the weaker conscience (if the partakers commonly agree to it. (Rom 14:15-20) However, neither should a minister nor an entire congregation be held hostage to 'perpetually' weaker consciences of others, who never quite seem to want to either grow out of such abstinence rules, or at least not believe others are sinning for partaking (I.e. Pentecostalism: The religion of the weak portrayed as the really holiness strong) "My quarrel is when these personal convictions are somehow given the status of bible doctrine..." Vic 2) A case could be made that wine is to be avoided in ministerial things (such as communion), because O.T. Scripture forbid it in His tabernacle of service, and Jesus used the 'fruit of the vine' as His drink for New Testament blood. (Which can mean either wine or grapejuice?) But, Paul notably did not refer to the drink, but only the cup of cummunion in 1 Cor 11:25-28. Which silence is 'deafening': A plain absence of doctrine concerning the drink itself; therefore, wine or grapejuice, or some other drink... (I found that the Mormons use WATER in their communion services. Why? Because their cutlism is against Jesus as the Lamb of God who forgives all believers' sins. So they even avoid the COLOR RED! The Mormons are cultishly connected to their own great Leaders, prophets, ets... Even as we were with ours. So, they don't want believers to be freely forgiven of God by Jesus directly and personally, WITHOUT the Leader's personal participation in it. Even as ours liked to.) I do know that I would provide either/or in any given service, because those who abstain either by taste or by conscience would thus refrain from partaking or drink with offence. But, as in all things ministerial, consistent sound teaching of what the Scriptures do say is always the best answer for such situations. (Which is why about 80% of the problems in God's church is due to false teaching of those who think they something but don't know as they ought...) But that don't stop them from declaring their commandments as Pastor-apostles, or apostolic-pastors (Hello Davis!) | ||
| bro_derrick Senior Member Username: bro_derrick Post Number: 1975 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 70.197.136.22 |
The point must also be made that the Mosaic Law was RELIGIOUS in nature, including the so-called 'dietary' parts. One such commandment concerned swine, so as to symbolize the uncleanness of the Gentile, or then unbelieving world. And has continued in the New Testament concerning her wallowing in the mire. It was NOT a special statement from God about pork! It is an absolute misnomer to refer to such points of Mosaic Law as the 'Dietary Law'. God did not EVER give 'dietary' commandments, but rather RELIGIOUS ones, that were to symbolize spiritual things and judgment, which were later removed in Christ Jesus. But as natural man will naturally do, they focus themselves on the 'dietary' parts, rather than the religious significance of them, and then even refuse to yield them to the coming of Christ! It is the bane of the Christian church, that most believers attempting to minister to others inevitably fail to know and abide by what Peter was teaching about private intepretations of Scripture. His command was not to preach OUR legitimate private interpretations of the Scripture as the Scripture itself. (Which is exactly what Vic was saying about OUR personal convictions being given the status of Bible doctrine for others to do as well!) It is only natural to want to share our 'good news' about things that we find to be personally good for us (Such as taking some of the Mosaic Scriptures and personally applying them to our nuitrition plan: Which is perfectly fine for individuals to do if they wish...), but then to go on and try to make it gospel for others is the big error of falsely ministering what we faithfully practise. In this bad way, every believer and his agreeing brother becomes another newly-risen apostle of their particular good news about being a Christian that the rest of the church NEVER knew about. (Why? Because the new apostolic stuff wasn't written by the 12 who DID recieve ALL the commandments of the Lord and passed them on in laying the foundation of Christ's doctrine!) Just because it's good for us, doesn't mean it HAS to be good for others! Part of growing up and putting away childish things includes doing away with the very childish mentality of thinking that others got to or ought to do what we do, like what we like, and believe what we believe! And when such childish behavior is carried out on the ministerial level, then we get our personal cult Leaders and followers, who are too childish and ignoble to read the Scriptures for themselves to see what God says is so for all, and then NOT to try and get everybody else to go along with our particular unwritten version of Christianity and Christian standards of holiness: Even to the cultish and destructive point of making commandments and whole church organizations out of them (Hello Davis, again!) | ||
| rls New member Username: rls Post Number: 7 Registered: 12-2007 Posted From: 65.28.108.137 |
Brother Derrick. Not sure that I know you, but regardless of that, "Greetings!" You know, I think I have heard various things concerning diet for a long time, both in the church, and more recently in Messianic Jewish circles, (the folks who are Jewish and accept the Messiah whom we accept). I have come to the conclusion as to what it says in the book of James, To him who knoweth to do good and doeth it not, to him it is sin. The question of knowing what is good comes in of course afterwards. I think if people follow after the Teacher and the Word of God, they will ultimately do what is right in God's eyes. As for diet, we do follow what is considered kosher, as such. That isn't every one's conviction and we accept that. For some folks that may seem too burdensome. | ||
| rls New member Username: rls Post Number: 8 Registered: 12-2007 Posted From: 65.28.108.137 |
I will say however, that with wine, as I stated above, (you had a question mark concerning wine and juice and what was used in the last supper of Jesus on Earth), that nyan from what I understand in the basic Hebraic meaning is that it stands for the grape in all of it's forms, from the vine to fermented product. It could have easily been just slightly fermented, as some insist. I do know that in most passover ceremonies the kiddush cup has the full fermented kosher wine in it. I suppose no driving for that fellow, eh?  From what I have learned over the years, culturally fully fermented wine was mixed with water in Jewish culture, when served as a regular drink, otherwise you would have been looked as barbaric. (As an aside, I suppose one could say that symbolizes also the water and the blood that flowed from His side, but perhaps that is reading too much into something). That was from a pastor in the pentecostal segment in Christianity, and I have yet to check that one out, but I haven't yet deemed it important enough to merit my time to check on, yet. | ||
| victorjohanson New member Username: victorjohanson Post Number: 5 Registered: 12-2007 Posted From: 66.230.112.249 |
"It is an absolute misnomer to refer to such points of Mosaic Law as the 'Dietary Law'. God did not EVER give 'dietary' commandments, but rather RELIGIOUS ones, that were to symbolize spiritual things and judgment, which were later removed in Christ Jesus." That's an excellent point, and it naturally leads us to the question of why those who impose their swine-abstinence upon all don't seem to feel obligated to obey the rest of Moses' law. Do they refrain from mixing textiles? Will they yoke an ox and an a55 together, or breed a mule? Do they refuse to sow diverse seed in the same field? If such a one is jealous of his wife, does he bring her to the church house and force her to drink the bitter water which causes her belly to swell and her thigh to rot if she's guilty? Will they stone to death a son who is a drunkard and a railer, or an urban rape victim who didn't cry out? Why is it that they are free to pick and choose just which of these laws are binding on us today? James said that if we offend in one point of law, we are guilty of all, and proposed as a solution that we behave as those who will be judged by the royal law of LIBERTY: loving neighbor as self. Of course, if they DO observe all these Old Testament commandments (and the hundreds of others), I commend them for their consistency, but maintain that they are in an even worse state of legalistic bondage. | ||
| rls New member Username: rls Post Number: 13 Registered: 12-2007 Posted From: 65.28.108.137 |
For the most part I agree with what is being said. Paul preaches against forcing Old Testament Law, but rather go by the rules mentioned in the New Testament as applicable. However, looking at the Bible as a whole, I see that there are things mentioned that are also mentioned in the Old Law. We don't say that it's OK to murder for example, and that is part of Old Testament Law. There are a lot of things in there that are mentioned in the works of the flesh and so forth, that are again mentioned in Old Testament Law. So, what is a lot of it actually based on? Old Testament Law with the exception it is under grace, and under liberty. Concerning loving neighbor as self, think about what that keeps a person from doing. It doesn't cover some other things, mixing textiles and such, but for the most part what is forbidden under the Old Law, is already taken care of by not doing it, simply because you love your neighbor as yourself, or you love God before all. As to religious laws doing with diet: I believe that there was a reason that God was making sure that the Israelites would be well, but instituted them dietary regulations as laws to be obeyed, just like many things. You even see some medical practises in the Old Testament, that we still loosely go by today. Quarantine for example. All Scripture was written for our edification, and applied under New Testament standards, which is why I believe it's a good idea to balance Scripture from both testaments against each other, and to remember that Jesus applies them under the laws of liberty. | ||
| victorjohanson New member Username: victorjohanson Post Number: 7 Registered: 12-2007 Posted From: 216.67.49.90 |
"However, looking at the Bible as a whole, I see that there are things mentioned that are also mentioned in the Old Law." That's evident, and simply means that before we regard something from the Old Testament as binding on believers today, we need New Testament corroboration. Should one choose to personally incorporate practices not explicitly carried forward, that is an individual decision and never obligatory for others. We don't reject murder because it's part of the ten commandments, but because murder is also forbidden in the New Testament (like plenty of other things). But I don't see anything about marrying my dead brother's wife to raise up seed unto him, and as we've already observed, the eating of 'unclean' meats is specifically sanctioned as 'good' (from a spiritual perspective). Legalism is a slippery slope. Many start with a few dietary restrictions, and before you know it they're branding Sunday meetings the mark of the beast and separating themselves from other believers just like the Judaizers of old. People are free to adopt any of Moses' teachings they wish, so long as they don't try to make them part of the gospel. | ||
| rls New member Username: rls Post Number: 20 Registered: 12-2007 Posted From: 65.28.108.137 |
Judaizers from what I understand about them, were people who said basically that the Gentiles had to become Jewish in order to be saved. That's a bit different than adopting things that could actually be good for a person. As for marrying your dead brother's wife, "What would Edna say?", (joking, don't hit me). | ||
| victorjohanson New member Username: victorjohanson Post Number: 8 Registered: 12-2007 Posted From: 216.67.49.90 |
"Judaizers from what I understand about them, were 'people who said basically that the Gentiles had to become Jewish in order to be saved. That's a bit different than adopting things that could actually be good for a person." Judaizers were those who made Moses' law obligatory on believers. Like I said, I don't have any quarrel with one who voluntarily adopts a lifestyle, only with those who presume to place an unbearable yoke of bondage (according to Peter) on everyone else. I'm frankly surprised that some here haven't come out demanding circumcision. Paul warned us against such just as emphatically as he did against the dictocrats of diet. "As for marrying your dead brother's wife, "What would Edna say?", (joking, don't hit me)." Well, my brother's still alive, and working on a divorce, so I suppose I'm off the hook there anyway. | ||
| doug_allen Intermediate Member Username: doug_allen Post Number: 239 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 67.35.72.9 |
"One sip [of beer] has you smelling as bad as a case" Greg, are you just plain stupid or did you chug too much Nyquil? | ||
| greg_s Intermediate Member Username: greg_s Post Number: 311 Registered: 6-2005 Posted From: 64.12.117.202 |
CONTINUING “A WINE PRIMER”… MORE TEACHING FOR THE KIDDIES: This latest series of greg_s posts is another primer for the praise-God-let’s-drink crowd. Hebrews 5:12 tells us, “For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.” So let’s look at some basics once again. Our proofs for this primer are anywhere wine is mentioned in the God’s New Testament Law (39 instances) the history and customs of the ancients, standard logic, linear reasoning et al will provide the correct understanding. Since God’s New Testament Law only deals with diluted fermented and unfermented wine and other grape products the praise-God-let’s-drink crowd’s undiluted wine, beer and liquor drinkers will have to look for justification for these activities outside of God’s New Testament Law. The praise-God-let’s-drink crowd’s premise always has to force the assumption onto God’s Law and the Body of Christ that whenever wine is mentioned in God’s New Testament Law that it is referring to undiluted fermented wine. Even if this were true the praise-God-let’s-drink crowd would still be restricted to fermented wine diluted with at least two parts and not more than twenty parts water. But this Hater assertion that whenever wine is mentioned in God’s New Testament Law that it is referring to fermented wine is not true as you will see below. It is imperative to the praise-God-let’s-drink crowd’s position that whenever wine is mentioned in God’s New Testament Law that it is undiluted and fermented. How does one reconcile or sort through contradictory teachings on any given subject contained in God’s New Testament Law? The answer to this question is not as difficult as you have been led to believe by the Haters. What is done is: (1) know what God’s Law teaches on any given subject (based exclusively on what is written) then (2) reject any teaching that leads you farther away from what is written…this will leave you with teachings that are in harmony with what God’s Law states. We are accountable to God for what is written in His Word not for what we think/hope/wish God’s Law says or what we need God’s Law to say. This is why we have been forced to reject the entire mass of the Haters teaching…because it consistently leads further away and not closer to what is written. Realize also that Hebrew, Greek, Webster’s, context, ancient history, ancient customs et al all have to be considered when 2 Timothy 2:15ing. In the end all has to be in harmony with what is written in God’s Law. In this piece we will not be appealing to the always weak “better safe than sorry” justification that is often espoused by adherents to the teetotaler position when/as they quickly run out of data. As you have seen in the past the Body of Christ’s positions on any subject do not run out of data. “A WINE PRIMER” CONTINUED BELOW… | ||
| doug_allen Intermediate Member Username: doug_allen Post Number: 241 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 67.35.72.9 |
"The praise-God-let’s-drink crowd’s premise always has to force the assumption onto God’s Law and the Body of Christ that whenever wine is mentioned in God’s New Testament Law that it is referring to undiluted fermented wine. Even if this were true the praise-God-let’s-drink crowd would still be restricted to fermented wine diluted with at least two parts and not more than twenty parts water." shunk, you are a joke | ||
| doug_allen Intermediate Member Username: doug_allen Post Number: 242 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 67.35.72.9 |
"In this piece we will not be appealing to the always weak “better safe than sorry” justification that is often espoused by adherents to the teetotaler position when/as they quickly run out of data." shunk, do you even understand your own argument? why are you distancing yourself from the teetotaler? | ||
| imaskingwhy Intermediate Member Username: imaskingwhy Post Number: 118 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 208.79.15.2 |
1 Corinthians 11:21-23 (King James Version) 21 For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. 22 What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? Shoot Bryan David Hill is looking in the bible again. Adding balance and introducing reason. He just doesn't take my favorite scriptures and offer a comforming smile. It is so good to be free, not owned by man and only by the blood. BDH | ||
| greg_s Intermediate Member Username: greg_s Post Number: 327 Registered: 6-2005 Posted From: 205.188.117.202 |
CONTINUING “A WINE PRIMER”… WHAT DOES STRONG’S HAVE TO SAY? (ADDED 12/24/2007):  Drunk--Ephesians 5:18: methysko (G3182)…a prolonged (transitive) form of <g3184> (methuo); to intoxicate :- be drunk (-en). NOTE: Note the presence of the word intoxicate in this definition. Part of the Webster’s definition of intoxicate is: To affect temporarily with diminished physical and mental control by means of alcoholic liquor, a drug, or another substance, esp. to excite or stupefy with liquor. END NOTE. Scientists have shown us that even the proverbial ‘one beer’ or its equivalent will do most of this as we will further share below. Drunken—1 Corinthians 11:21: methyo (G3184)…from another form of <g3178> (methe); to drink to intoxication, i.e. get drunk:- drink well, make (be) drunk (-en). Drunkard—1 Corinthians 5:11: methysos (G3183)…from <g3184> (methuo); tipsy, i.e. (as noun) a sot:- drunkard. NOTE: Note the presence of the word tipsy in this definition. Part of the Webster’s definition of tipsy is: Slightly intoxicated or drunk. END NOTE. Scientists have shown us that even the proverbial ‘one beer’ or its equivalent will do most of this as we will further share below. Winebibber—Matthew 11:19: oinopotes (G3630)…from <g3631> (oinos) and a derivative of the alternate of <g4095> (pino); a tippler:- winebibber. NOTE: Note the presence of the word tippler in this definition. Part of the Webster’s definition of tipple is: To drink (intoxicating liquor), esp. repeatedly, in small quantities. END NOTE. A.k.a. the proverbial ‘sipping saint’ or ‘one bear.’ Wine--oinos (G3631)--We will go into this more completely below, so to be a good steward of the FACTNet resources we regularly contribute toward we will save the space/bandwidth by not posting it here. Strong Drink—Luke 1:15: sikera (G4608)…of Hebrew origin [<h7941> (shekar)]; an intoxicant, i.e. intensely fermented liquor:- strong drink. NOTE: Note that Strong Drink is fermented. The distillation process had not been developed yet. This excludes anything but wine (the Jews and Romans did not drink beer at this time) as being after the Biblical pattern. And, as we will show below fermented and unfermented wine and other grape beverage products were only consumed by the ancients after the grape product had been mixed with no less than two parts water. END NOTE. “A WINE PRIMER” CONTINUED BELOW… | ||
| imaskingwhy Intermediate Member Username: imaskingwhy Post Number: 119 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 208.79.15.2 |
A perfect time for the Apostle Paul to rebuke and condem to hell these christians who were "drunken" and in God's house at that. I know, I know NTCC says they were drunk with food but then why the redundancy "to eat and drink"? I know, pesky little question huh? BDH | ||
| imaskingwhy Intermediate Member Username: imaskingwhy Post Number: 120 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 208.79.15.2 |
1 Corinthians 11:21-23 (King James Version) 21 For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. 22 What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? Shoot Bryan David Hill is looking in the bible again. Adding balance and introducing reason. He just doesn't take my favorite scriptures and offer a comforming smile. It is so good to be free, not owned by man and only by the blood. BDH | ||
| victorjohanson New member Username: victorjohanson Post Number: 24 Registered: 12-2007 Posted From: 66.223.233.130 |
Jn 2:9 When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew;) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom, 2:10 And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: [but] thou hast kept the good wine until now. According to Greg, Jesus made alcoholic wine; see below the definition he provides of the word translated into "drunk" from John 2:10: Drunken—1 Corinthians 11:21: methyo (G3184)…from another form of <g3178> (methe); to drink to intoxication, i.e. get drunk:- drink well, make (be) drunk (-en). This condition was caused by "good wine," such as that which was produced late in the feast by Jesus. It would be presumptuous to insult the governor of the feast by believing he was incapable of telling the difference. Maybe Greg the Greek can post us a definition of "good." We can see here that it is broad enough to include fermented wine. I've made some myself that was pretty good! | ||
| mark_g New member Username: mark_g Post Number: 5 Registered: 12-2007 Posted From: 72.201.122.179 |
Greg is typical of many of the Pastors that are at NTCC that find themselves in situations where they say one thing, and the bible says something different. The way that you circumvent that is to do the same thing that Dake does in his commentary, and that is to make it sound scholarly, add some Greek and Hebrew, misapply texts, and explain it to the point so as to DEFINE what the Bible says about the subject right out of existence. | ||
| victorjohanson Junior Member Username: victorjohanson Post Number: 27 Registered: 12-2007 Posted From: 66.230.84.115 |
"Greg is typical of many of the Pastors that are at NTCC that find themselves in situations where they say one thing, and the bible says something different. The way that you circumvent that is to do the same thing that Dake does in his commentary, and that is to make it sound scholarly, add some Greek and Hebrew, misapply texts, and explain it to the point so as to DEFINE what the Bible says about the subject right out of existence." I handled it by leaving the organization which spoonfed me the spurious doctrine. | ||
| granite Intermediate Member Username: granite Post Number: 226 Registered: 4-2006 Posted From: 72.24.207.240 |
Vic: Concerning the phrases, "every creature of God is good" (1 Tim. 4:4), and "every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you" (Gen. 9:3). Does this imply that human flesh is acceptable? If we take it at face value, then why would it not? If you were a missionary to New Guinea or Borneo (or China) and some remote tribe served you up some "Cannibal Casserole", would you receive it? Do you believe your prayers of thanksgiving could bring God to bless and sanctify it to you? If not, the same standard should be consistently applied to all other unclean meats. That is why Ezekiel was pleased when God allowed him to exchange man's dung for cow's dung for his food preparation in Ezek. 4:12-15: because he knew that the cow is a clean creature, in contrast to man, who is not so classified. There are indeed diseases that are associated with the eating of various unclean meats, e.g., shellfish, which elicits an alarmingly high rate of allergies with sometimes even fatal reactions; pork, which typically carries a worm that often causes symptoms attributed to other diseases which are in fact trichinosis; and armadillo, which even the Federal government has issued strong warnings against. God placed these restrictions on meat, not for our self-righteousness but simply for the best possible well-being and preservation of our bodies. And for that very reason it should never become "a test of fellowship," as it is in some circles. The late Baptist evangelist Lester Roloff was asked to pray over a meal just after pork was set on the table, which he did not eat. He prayed thusly: "Lord, if you can bless under Grace what you cursed under Law, have at it!" He also said, "I don't believe a man can eat enough hog meat to make him die & go to Hell -- but I do believe he can eat enough to make him go to Heaven a lot quicker." "That Thy way may be known upon earth, Thy saving health among all nations." - Psalm 67:2 | ||
| clearwater Junior Member Username: clearwater Post Number: 32 Registered: 11-2007 Posted From: 67.183.231.124 |
........."and some remote tribe served you up some "cannibal Cassreole", would you receive it? I dont know about Vic, but I would probably eat it asking no questions for conscience sake (I Cor 10:25). That is how Paul would have dealt with it. Not.... is there shelfish or hog in this stew? If so take it back to the kitchen!!!!! Les, you seem to be more concerned with it than Paul was. The meals/diet only became an issue if the offering party made known that it was "offered to idols". Furthermore, at the point it became an issue for reasons entirely different than what you list. | ||
| victorjohanson Junior Member Username: victorjohanson Post Number: 28 Registered: 12-2007 Posted From: 66.230.84.115 |
"Vic: Concerning the phrases, "every creature of God is good" (1 Tim. 4:4), and "every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you" (Gen. 9:3). Does this imply that human flesh is acceptable?" I suppose that would depend on the circumstances. Would you condemn those who've eaten the flesh of others who were aready dead to avoid death themselves? I'm sure you are aware that this scenario has happened; are you saying that those diners sinned? I'm not. There is a strong cultural taboo against eating human flesh, but I don't see any prohibitions codified in scripture. Do you? Since God doesn't say it's a sin, neither would I, despite any personal distaste for the practice. I think clearwater posted the most appropriate reaction to the situation you proposed. If you were a missionary, would you reject the local customs even if they weren't forbidden by the bible? If so, that would be substituting your own culture for the gospel message. What verses would you use to tell them they were sinning? The ones you're using here aren't persuasive; God says every creature is good, but you want to say that he didn't really mean 'every creature,' because what about human flesh, yadda yadda, which you apparently exclude based on our 21st century Western aversion to such things, not on any specific divine commandment. Your reasoning concerning the substitution cited in Ezekiel is mere speculation, and not supported in any way by the text. I predict that any poll would reveal that most people would rather eat cow dung than human dung on aesthetic grounds alone; the nose can tell us that much. Maybe Ezekiel was relieved that he didn't have to gag down some smelly human crap, eh? Don't use what's not there to support a doctrine you like. Lester Roloff may have meant well in a lot of things, but the more I learn about his whole operation, the more it reminds me of NTCC and the kind of freakish control they wield. I know RW sure liked him; I believe he was the only contemporary preacher I heard him speak well of, and he even claimed to have given him an offering. Thanks for not sending us to hell, but I'm not accepting the back of the bus, either. | ||
| greg_s Intermediate Member Username: greg_s Post Number: 328 Registered: 6-2005 Posted From: 64.12.117.202 |
CONTINUING “A WINE PRIMER”… WHAT DOES WEBSTER’S HAVE TO SAY?: wine n., adj., v., wined, win•ing. –n. 1. the fermented juice of grapes, made in many varieties, such as red, white, sweet, dry, still, and sparkling, for use as a beverage, in cooking, in religious rites, etc., and usually having an alcoholic content of 14 percent or less. 3. the juice, fermented or unfermented, of various other fruits or plants, used as a beverage, sauce, etc. 6. something that invigorates, cheers, or intoxicates like wine. 8. Obs. intoxication due to the drinking of wine. NOTE: This definition excludes even ‘one beer.’ END NOTE. drunk adj. 1. being in a temporary state in which one's physical and mental faculties are impaired by an excess of alcoholic drink; intoxicated. 3. pertaining to or caused by intoxication or intoxicated persons. –n. 4. an intoxicated person. 5. a spree; drinking party. NOTE: This definition excludes even ‘one beer.’ All one has to do is be ‘impaired.’ The proverbial ‘one beer’ or its equivalent does this as we will show below. END NOTE. intoxicated adj.1. affected by a substance that intoxicates; drunk; inebriated. NOTE: This definition excludes even ‘one beer.’ All one has to do is be ‘affected.’ The proverbial ‘one beer’ or its equivalent does this as we will show below. END NOTE. GOD’S WORD WINS AGAIN: The small amount we have posted thus far completely refutes the Haters non-stand that a Christian can Biblically drink alcohol. But, there is much more extremely boring content following: “A WINE PRIMER” CONTINUED BELOW… | ||
| tracypelfrey New member Username: tracypelfrey Post Number: 21 Registered: 12-2007 Posted From: 76.211.13.190 |
HEY GREG, ARE YOU STILL A MINISTER IN NTCC? THIS IS AN EASY...yes OR no QUESTION. IT DOESN'T REQUIRE A WHOLE "primer"...for an answer. Thanks, Tracy | ||
| imaskingwhy Intermediate Member Username: imaskingwhy Post Number: 121 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 208.79.15.2 |
Hey! whhhooooohhhoooooooo, over here, look you forgot one. 1 Corinthians 11:21-23 (King James Version) 21 For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. 22 What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? BDH | ||
| imaskingwhy Intermediate Member Username: imaskingwhy Post Number: 122 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 208.79.15.3 |
Hey! whhhooooohhhoooooooo, over here, look you forgot one. 1 Corinthians 11:21-23 (King James Version) 21 For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. 22 What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? BDH | ||
| rls New member Username: rls Post Number: 21 Registered: 12-2007 Posted From: 65.28.108.137 |
Greg_S. Using your own Websters definition I'm going to ask you a question. First the definition: WHAT DOES STRONG’S HAVE TO SAY? (ADDED 12/24/2007): Drunk--Ephesians 5:18: methysko (G3182)…a prolonged (transitive) form of <g3184> (methuo); to intoxicate :- be drunk (-en). NOTE: Note the presence of the word intoxicate in this definition. Part of the Webster’s definition of intoxicate is: To affect temporarily with diminished physical and mental control by means of alcoholic liquor, a drug, or another substance, esp. to excite or stupefy with liquor. END NOTE. Scientists have shown us that even the proverbial ‘one beer’ or its equivalent will do most of this as we will further share below. Do you take any OTC medication, prescription medication with warnings against operation of heavy equipment, motor vehicles, and similar thereto; warns of possible dizziness or other side affects that may disturb your sense of balance, cause drowsiness, may make one psychogically or physically dependent on any of the drugs that you may take in any way shape or form? This includes using it as a tablet, caplet, capsule, liquid, powders, vapors, transderma preperations. If you have taken doxylamine succinate, chlorophirneramine maleate, any other type of OTC antihistimine, with the exception of perhaps one, then you have taken something that meets the definition that you have posted in one form or another, making it unsafe for you to drive personal conveyances according to most State laws, commercial vehicles according to most federal laws applicable to transportation, as well as State laws, depending on the medicine, and it's affects on you, or on what can be detected by urinalysis or blood test. You better not drive within my jurisdiction, you may have to surrender your license. For your information, not a hater, but I do pity poeple who have so been blinded by misinformation, such as what NTCC puts out there, as well as other so called Christian organizations, who are even remotely similar. That's why Paul said to check up on people, even including himself. | ||
| rls New member Username: rls Post Number: 22 Registered: 12-2007 Posted From: 65.28.108.137 |
Greg_S. Using your own Websters definition I'm going to ask you a question. First the definition: WHAT DOES STRONG’S HAVE TO SAY? (ADDED 12/24/2007): Drunk--Ephesians 5:18: methysko (G3182)…a prolonged (transitive) form of <g3184> (methuo); to intoxicate :- be drunk (-en). NOTE: Note the presence of the word intoxicate in this definition. Part of the Webster’s definition of intoxicate is: To affect temporarily with diminished physical and mental control by means of alcoholic liquor, a drug, or another substance, esp. to excite or stupefy with liquor. END NOTE. Scientists have shown us that even the proverbial ‘one beer’ or its equivalent will do most of this as we will further share below. Do you take any OTC medication, prescription medication with warnings against operation of heavy equipment, motor vehicles, and similar thereto; warns of possible dizziness or other side affects that may disturb your sense of balance, cause drowsiness, may make one psychogically or physically dependent on any of the drugs that you may take in any way shape or form? This includes using it as a tablet, caplet, capsule, liquid, powders, vapors, transderma preperations. If you have taken doxylamine succinate, chlorophirneramine maleate, any other type of OTC antihistimine, with the exception of perhaps one, then you have taken something that meets the definition that you have posted in one form or another, making it unsafe for you to drive personal conveyances according to most State laws, commercial vehicles according to most federal laws applicable to transportation, as well as State laws, depending on the medicine, and it's affects on you, or on what can be detected by urinalysis or blood test. You better not drive within my jurisdiction, you may have to surrender your license. For your information, not a hater, but I do pity poeple who have so been blinded by misinformation, such as what NTCC puts out there, as well as other so called Christian organizations, who are even remotely similar. That's why Paul said to check up on people, even including himself. | ||
| rls New member Username: rls Post Number: 23 Registered: 12-2007 Posted From: 65.28.108.137 |
Greg_S. Using your own Websters definition I'm going to ask you a question. First the definition: WHAT DOES STRONG’S HAVE TO SAY? (ADDED 12/24/2007): Drunk--Ephesians 5:18: methysko (G3182)…a prolonged (transitive) form of <g3184> (methuo); to intoxicate :- be drunk (-en). NOTE: Note the presence of the word intoxicate in this definition. Part of the Webster’s definition of intoxicate is: To affect temporarily with diminished physical and mental control by means of alcoholic liquor, a drug, or another substance, esp. to excite or stupefy with liquor. END NOTE. Scientists have shown us that even the proverbial ‘one beer’ or its equivalent will do most of this as we will further share below. Do you take any OTC medication, prescription medication with warnings against operation of heavy equipment, motor vehicles, and similar thereto; warns of possible dizziness or other side affects that may disturb your sense of balance, cause drowsiness, may make one psychogically or physically dependent on any of the drugs that you may take in any way shape or form? This includes using it as a tablet, caplet, capsule, liquid, powders, vapors, transderma preperations. If you have taken doxylamine succinate, chlorophirneramine maleate, any other type of OTC antihistimine, with the exception of perhaps one, then you have taken something that meets the definition that you have posted in one form or another, making it unsafe for you to drive personal conveyances according to most State laws, commercial vehicles according to most federal laws applicable to transportation, as well as State laws, depending on the medicine, and it's affects on you, or on what can be detected by urinalysis or blood test. You better not drive within my jurisdiction, you may have to surrender your license. For your information, not a hater, but I do pity poeple who have so been blinded by misinformation, such as what NTCC puts out there, as well as other so called Christian organizations, who are even remotely similar. That's why Paul said to check up on people, even including himself. | ||
| rls New member Username: rls Post Number: 24 Registered: 12-2007 Posted From: 65.28.108.137 |
Double post. (Message edited by rls on January 05, 2008) | ||
| granite Intermediate Member Username: granite Post Number: 228 Registered: 4-2006 Posted From: 72.24.207.240 |
CW: The passage in 1 Cor. 10 concerns the eating of clean meat offered to idols, not unclean meats, because it may be safely assumed that neither Christ nor the apostles ate anything but clean meats. The lesson of the oft-cited passage in Acts 10 is given by Peter himself in verse 28: It did not mean that Peter now ate pork, possum or pelican. It simply meant that converted Jews were no longer to consider converted Gentiles as common or unclean before God. (Dan. 7:1-7 describes the Gentile world as unclean beasts.) If swine's flesh had been transformed into clean meat after Calvary or the resurrection, the best way Christ could have shown this would have been to have cooked ham, bacon, or pork sausage when he made breakfast for the disciples in John 21:9, and even to eat it himself, as he did with the fish. Unthinkable! Vic: Concerning cannibalism, it is portrayed in an extremely negative way at least a half dozen times in the O.T. You are quite correct, however, that there is no actual Scripture proscribing it and calling it a "sin," per se. The only real distinction is that because man is made in the image of God, we usually go to great lengths to dispose of human remains properly rather than eat it or just leaving a corpse to rot and become even animal food, much less human food. The only Scriptural reason that can be given for human flesh being unacceptable for food is the same reason that swine's flesh should not be considered healthful to consume: Clean-meated mammals must both "chew the cud" and have a cloven hoof. The hog does indeed have a cloven hoof as does the cow, but does not chew the cud. Man, however, strikes out on both counts! | ||
| granite Intermediate Member Username: granite Post Number: 229 Registered: 4-2006 Posted From: 72.24.207.240 |
CW: The passage in 1 Cor. 10 concerns the eating of clean meat offered to idols, not unclean meats, because it may be safely assumed that neither Christ nor the apostles ate anything but clean meats. The lesson of the oft-cited passage in Acts 10 is given by Peter himself in verse 28: It did not mean that Peter now ate pork, possum or pelican. It simply meant that converted Jews were no longer to consider converted Gentiles as common or unclean before God. (Dan. 7:1-7 describes the Gentile world as unclean beasts.) If swine's flesh had been transformed into clean meat after Calvary or the resurrection, the best way Christ could have shown this would have been to have cooked ham, bacon, or pork sausage when he made breakfast for the disciples in John 21:9, and even to eat it himself, as he did with the fish. Unthinkable! Vic: Concerning cannibalism, it is portrayed in an extremely negative way at least a half dozen times in the O.T. You are quite correct, however, that there is no actual Scripture proscribing it and calling it a "sin," per se. The only real distinction is that because man is made in the image of God, we usually go to great lengths to dispose of human remains properly rather than eat it or just leaving a corpse to rot and become even animal food, much less human food. The only Scriptural reason that can be given for human flesh being unacceptable for food is the same reason that swine's flesh should not be considered healthful to consume: Clean-meated mammals must both "chew the cud" and have a cloven hoof. The hog does indeed have a cloven hoof as does the cow, but does not chew the cud. Man, however, strikes out on both counts! | ||
| clearwater Junior Member Username: clearwater Post Number: 34 Registered: 11-2007 Posted From: 67.183.231.124 |
Granite, no one has a craving to eat human flesh. The Lord has already promised to provide our needs so I doubt it would ever come to that. So Your straw man argument is weak and untenable. "let no man judge you in 'meat' (unless, it's unclean of course, huh? Paul knew the implications of what he was saying) or drink or in respect to holyday". Let no man judge you on these issues, yet you insist on doing just that. Next, I suppose you will be laying an argument for church on Saturday? Rhetorical question. Besides, how are black people going to become Christian if you lay a snare and say they can have their pork? (lol..... I am black) | ||
| steve_tyrer Member Username: steve_tyrer Post Number: 83 Registered: 4-2005 Posted From: 69.150.171.68 |
Another thread asks the question of why the Bible isn't good enough for Pentecostals. I wonder why it's not good enough for everyone else. I heard about some diet called a Hallelujah Diet (it's a vegetable only diet) - - why try to make something biblical just because someone wants to eat in a specific manner. It's not biblical to put restrictions on food, except for blood. And people are blind if they can't see the difference between having one drink and getting drunk. It's like saying you can't eat one bite of food because gluttony is wrong. | ||
| granite Intermediate Member Username: granite Post Number: 230 Registered: 4-2006 Posted From: 4.245.15.132 |
Steve: There is an additional proscription, even in the Scripture that you cite about blood: "Things strangled" are also forbidden to New Testament believers (Acts 15:20, 21:25). The science behind this is that when death happens in that manner, toxic hormones such as adrenaline are released in significant quantities into the meat and thus make that meat unhealthful to consume. (As an aside, if God doesn't want us EATING even small amounts of blood, how can it be better to inject blood directly into our veins via transfusion? - just a question) At the very least, these are simply more examples of God seeing to our health and physical well-being. Does this have some bearing on the faith of Gentile converts? I don't know just how it would, but it was important enough to mention along with some serious sins, so evidently it does! Vegetarianism/veganism was God's original diet for man, yet Paul describes him as "weak in the faith" if he does not believe he may eat "all things" (as do faithful 7th-Day Adventists, who abstain from meat). When we use the word "all," we do not necessarily always mean it in the most extreme sense of the word. If someone says they have spent "all" their money, they probably don't mean they are bankrupt, just that they have spent all the cash they have on hand. Paul says that those who are strong in the faith know that "meat commendeth us not to God," and that it is not sinful to eat clean meats as long as they not been strangled and contain no blood. As an optional addition, if we follow Christ's example fully, in the interest of our best health we will also abstain from unclean meats as well, or at the very least minimize our intake of them. It is analogous to circumcision. In Christ there is no spiritual benefit to it, but that does not mean there is not still some benefit to it in the natural/physical. I like your point about wine, and agree btw. (Message edited by granite on January 05, 2008) | ||
| victorjohanson Junior Member Username: victorjohanson Post Number: 32 Registered: 12-2007 Posted From: 66.230.84.115 |
"Next, I suppose you will be laying an argument for church on Saturday?" If you look, you will see he's already done that in the past here on FACTNet. Les, how come your posts seem to consist largely of elaborate explanations as to why what is clearly said in the bible can't be what it really means? Why do you insist on some esoteric knowledge that has to be learned someplace else in order for scripture to be correctly interpreted? I think it is far preferable to just go with the clear meaning of a text, instead of twisting it around to fit a particular theology. This is a lesson that I learned from long association with NTCC, and now that I'm gone, I don't intend to continue with that kind of exegesis. It disappoints me that you take all these fringe positions and try to make them into doctrine for all. | ||
| greg_s Intermediate Member Username: greg_s Post Number: 333 Registered: 6-2005 Posted From: 64.12.117.202 |
CONTINUING “A WINE PRIMER”… ONE DRINK IS ALL IT TAKES; ONE DRINK WILL DO IT: One sip has you smelling as bad (the Haters would say as good) as a case. As you will see below one drink will render a person drunk and intoxicated, it is just a matter of degree/percentage. We know the Haters always pooh-pooh this premise but this fact will still always remain a true fact. This same premise does not apply to the gluttony un-argument (e.g. if ten bites is over eating for you one bite makes you one tenth a glutton) because we have to eat to live; we do not have to drink undiluted fermented wine, beer, liquor et al to live. Although, as we have seen on FACTNet some of the Haters live to drink and became Haters to drink undiluted fermented wine, beer liquor et al. Again, food does not a glutton make because we need to eat. We don’t need to drink undiluted fermented wine. Ingestion of undiluted fermented wine is to be a percent drunk/drunken. God often deals in percentages (think tithe). 1 Peter 5:8 tells us to be sober which in the Greek means to abstain from wine and to be discreet. Abstain means to hold oneself back or refrain. Isn’t studying God’s New Testament Law a blessing? Why don’t you agree? 1 Corinthians 5:11 tells us not to fellowship with professing Christians that are drunkards. Interestingly, the Greek word that is translated drunkard in this verse means tipsy. Tipsy means to be slightly intoxicated…Uh-oh, this study isn’t headed in the Haters direction is it? So we are forbidden from being with professing Christians that get slightly intoxicated from alcohol ingestion. If you are beginning to feel backed into a corner realize it is just the Holy Ghost bearing witness with God’s New Testament Law. For those of you that aren’t teetotalers or that refuse to become teetotalers this feeling will get worse before it gets better as you continue reading and before you further harden your heart. Ephesians 5:18 tells us to not be drunk with wine. The word drunk in this verse is translated from the Greek word meaning to intoxicate. This Greek word directly relates to not intoxicating yourself or others. So whether we are dealing with a drunk, tipsy person or a promoter of alcohol use alcohol is condemned in God’s New Testament Law for the Body of Christ. Whatever key word search you care to use (drunk, drunken, drank, drink, drinking et al) you will not find any genuine conclusive support for undiluted fermented wine use for the Body of Christ in God’s New Testament Law. “A WINE PRIMER” CONTINUED BELOW… | ||
| nbrown New member Username: nbrown Post Number: 5 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 71.39.121.237 |
You once took a swipe at Tracy for spending too much time posting on the internet, but you are on here all the time. Isn't that hypocritical? | ||
| pelfdaddy Senior Member Username: pelfdaddy Post Number: 1003 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 166.214.221.30 |
Les, When Peter was told to "arise, kill and eat"... Obviously it was illustrative of the New Policy on Gentile Inclusion, as you point out. And yet, if the statement itself is not to be taken at face value in ANY respect, then Peter ought not to have ACTUALLY entered the house of Cornelius. To put it another way: 1) To "eat" means to include Gentiles 1a) But to actually eat? Unthinkable! (your word, Les) 2) I now go to the house of Cornelius 2a) But to actually enter? Unthinkable! You see what I mean? In after years, Peter could be excused, and he would be right, to eat things formally deemed unclean based on this vision alone. Had you been at the house of the tanner, and heard Peter tell the story of the vision, you would have insisted that no such vision could come from God. You would have rebuked Peter with, "I don't care what you THINK you saw and heard, those things are not good for us, and I frankly do not think we have any business going to the Gentiles. Unthinkable!" No offense intended, here...just wondering how this can make sense at all. | ||
| rls Junior Member Username: rls Post Number: 27 Registered: 12-2007 Posted From: 65.28.108.137 |
Greg_S, you wordy person. You have yet to even answer my question. Just for that I will add to the question that I have already asked. Since you have possibly taken medication in your past, or present that may have affected your cognitive processes, are you possibly in danger of being intoxicated, or affected by those drugs? Yet another question for you boyo. How about those cardiologists that prescribe, (yes actual prescriptions), of a certain amount of red wine for heart, and the arterial, and venous passageways of a patient, along with his or her other prescriptions? Are they also in danger of making their patients drunk if they don't abuse the prescribed substances? How about Paul when writing to Timothy, saying, "Drink a little, (look up the word little in your dictionary Greg_S), wine for your stomach's sake? Actual verse quote: 1 Timothy 5:23, "Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities. KJV" Evidently Paul knew a little something about home remedies. What sayeth the Scriptures concerning this area of life Greg_S? Keeping in mind, anyone can abuse anything, to include wine, however in this case, Paul told him, (and there it is in Scripture for you), to stay away from the water. What's that tell you? | ||
| rls Junior Member Username: rls Post Number: 28 Registered: 12-2007 Posted From: 65.28.108.137 |
I'm not through with you yet Greg_S. I'm going to throw another question out to you. What is the remedy in United States emergency medical practice concerning ethylene glycol poisoning? Intravenous infusion of, (Are you ready for this?), ethyl, (grain in this case), alcohol. Now why would a doctor make a patient drunk? Perhaps because he would rather see that the patient live, then die of ethylene glycol poisoning, eh? By the way you can use things like clear liquors, like high alcohol vodka, even white lightening, (provided it's distilled properly), for the same purpose. All done under medical supervision, of course. The only difference Greg_S is the method of dosage. Instead of administering orally it is administered in this case through I.V. infusion. Then as the ethylene glycol exits the human body they then bring down the level of ethyl alcohol so that alcohol poisoning will not happen to the extent that it would in turn lethal in the patient to whom it is being administered. Oh, by the way, the person is well drunk before it is over with, but recovers from this if the ethylene glycol poisoning is dealt with in short order, (to my recollection). Now, how exactly would this be handled in Scripture? Perhaps Luke the Beloved Physician could give you a clue. I'm sure he would have a lot of good things about this, even though this would be indirectly related. | ||
| rls Junior Member Username: rls Post Number: 29 Registered: 12-2007 Posted From: 65.28.108.137 |
Greg_S, since you have been invoking Scripture, The Holy Spirit, God by various titles and offices concerning this, I will now bring references simply from the Bible. No personal opinion of mine will be involved in this for a bit, Just look at the Scripture. Luke 5:39 (King James Version) King James Version (KJV) 39No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better. John 2:3-10 (King James Version) King James Version (KJV) 3And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine. 4Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come. 5His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it. 6And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece. 7Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim. 8And he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast. And they bare it. 9When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew;) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom, 10And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now. Revelation 6:5-6 (King James Version) King James Version (KJV) 5And when he had opened the third seal, I heard the third beast say, Come and see. And I beheld, and lo a black horse; and he that sat on him had a pair of balances in his hand. 6And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts say, A measure of wheat for a penny, and three measures of barley for a penny; and see thou hurt not the oil and the wine. | ||
| rls Junior Member Username: rls Post Number: 30 Registered: 12-2007 Posted From: 65.28.108.137 |
Greg_S you seem to be fairly adept at going after Scripture that goes along with the teetotaler position, (still a fairly new concept in relevance to the age of the faith itself). So, I took the liberty of posting a few passages of Scripture concerning the proper use of wine. This didn't even include the other uses, such as antiseptic, anti biotic and anti viral, (think of the Good Samaritan story). I did this to add a little balance to what you are putting forth there Greg_S. If you're going to put out Scripture, perhaps going after balance will help you place the whole Word out, not subjective to any certain organizational dogma. Now quit avoiding the answer in plain old English, directly answering the question. Or, is taking a simpler tact too much effort for you? Doing the kind of things that you are doing makes you look like a wordy knuckle head. Saying much and buffeting the wind while doing so. Simply placing Scripture out in support of your position would actually be more practical, and to the point, instead of interspersing your ideology along with it. | ||
| imaskingwhy Intermediate Member Username: imaskingwhy Post Number: 124 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 208.79.15.2 |
Greg is not going to answer you. His job is to counter Ex NTCC er positions in what appears to be both systematic and thought thru. However, as he writes he only exposes the bias he has for what he was spoon fed. Don't fret if he does not pay you special attention becuase he has been instructed with his limits and liberties by his superiors. He is in affect bought and paid for. Let the man do his job, if you look closely he is clarifying and solidifying much of what we assert. It is like claiming a that a donkey hee haws, and then it hee haws and removes all doubt. We should thank him. Bryan David Hill | ||
| imaskingwhy Intermediate Member Username: imaskingwhy Post Number: 125 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 208.79.15.3 |
Greg is not going to answer you. His job is to counter Ex NTCC er positions in what appears to be both systematic and thought thru. However, as he writes he only exposes the bias he has for what he was spoon fed. Don't fret if he does not pay you special attention becuase he has been instructed with his limits and liberties by his superiors. He is in affect bought and paid for. Let the man do his job, if you look closely he is clarifying and solidifying much of what we assert. It is like claiming a that a donkey hee haws, and then it hee haws and removes all doubt. We should thank him. Bryan David Hill | ||
| imaskingwhy Intermediate Member Username: imaskingwhy Post Number: 126 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 208.79.15.3 |
Greg is not going to answer you. His job is to counter Ex NTCC er positions in what appears to be both systematic and thought thru. However, as he writes he only exposes the bias he has for what he was spoon fed. Don't fret if he does not pay you special attention becuase he has been instructed with his limits and liberties by his superiors. He is in affect bought and paid for. Let the man do his job, if you look closely he is clarifying and solidifying much of what we assert. It is like claiming a that a donkey hee haws, and then it hee haws and removes all doubt. We should thank him. Bryan David Hill | ||
| rls Junior Member Username: rls Post Number: 31 Registered: 12-2007 Posted From: 65.28.108.137 |
I simply like countering idiocy with logic and in the case of the faith, Scripture. Greg_S seems to be full of it. If he cannot answer for himself, he is less than a man. Even a Roman Catholic priest is able to answer directly, and I have had more intelligent conversations with them because of it; and we don't have to agree on all points to have a conversation. | ||
| bro_derrick Senior Member Username: bro_derrick Post Number: 1984 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 75.197.253.73 |
"As for diet, we do follow what is considered kosher, as such. That isn't every one's conviction and we accept that. For some folks that may seem too burdensome." Whatsoever a Christian follows for personal conscience and culture, that is NOT contrary to the plainly written rule of Christ in His New Covenant, is indeed acceptable to themselves and Jesus alone: 'Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.' (Rom 14:22) God takes the sin out of the Christian's culture, not the Christian! So long as no man compels other believers to do likewise, then the body remains in the unity of the Spirit and common faith of Jesus. Otherwise, men's commandments are added to God's New Testament Covenant, even as they did in the Old. (Mark 7:7)(Titus 1:14) (Which are indeed grievous and burdensome...) That was (and is) the error of Judaizing Christianity, which Peter and Barnabas even got caught up in and were rightly rebuked for it by Paul (Gal 2:12-14)...why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? We who are Jews by nature... I.e. as their natural culture. Thus personal culture is made similar to and on par with Christ's kingdom, which in turn dissembles believers one from another by a division of cultural obedience: Schism in the body. Such cultural things raised to that of commandments are NOT bound to be kept by ANY believer, which is what Paul spoke of in not allowing our Liberty (in the perfect law of Christ) to be judged of another man's conscience. (1 Cor 10:29) Within the law of Christ Christians may freely live whatsoever personal culture they so desire by faith in Jesus. And knowing the difference between the two: personal culture within common rule, is NECESSARY in order not to minister and command the one for the other! I.e.: You can be culturally kosher all you want as a Christian, even according to such things written in the Old Testament. And they which practise it are NOT better Christians than they which do not, who are none the worse. (1 Cor 8:8) For 'culture commendeth us not to God...' So long as you understand it is your LIBERTY and NOT your nor anyone's rule. It is ONLY your personal culture and NOT Christ's kingdom, even as it is ONLY kosher and NOT the Lord's commandment... not to others nor even to YOU (!) The very moment any believer keeps by commandment any thing that is not already written as such for all New Covenant Christians to keep (as delivered to us by the 12), then that believer is no longer exercising their liberty in the Law of Christ, but rather is obeying another commander and false apostle, that desires to exercise lordship over you... (Matthew 20:25, 24:23-24)(Acts 20:29-30) | ||
| steve_tyrer Member Username: steve_tyrer Post Number: 85 Registered: 4-2005 Posted From: 69.152.169.162 |
"(As an aside, if God doesn't want us EATING even small amounts of blood, how can it be better to inject blood directly into our veins via transfusion? - just a question)" Les, my thought is that God doesn't tell us it's wrong to have blood given to us by transfusion. There is enough that the Bible says for us not to do - - we don't need to make up any more restrictions. | ||
| doug_allen Intermediate Member Username: doug_allen Post Number: 254 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 67.35.72.9 |
January 05, 2008 - 6:28 pm greg_s posted: "As you will see below one drink will render a person drunk and intoxicated, it is just a matter of degree/percentage…Ingestion of undiluted fermented wine is to be a percent drunk/drunken. God often deals in percentages (think tithe). Nyquil has a 25% content. Greg, does NTCC prohibit the use of Nyquil? I think you will find it a blessing to do a little thinking, "Uh-oh…"do you find yourself backed into a corner? How about mouthwash? "Uh-oh…" | ||
| granite Intermediate Member Username: granite Post Number: 231 Registered: 4-2006 Posted From: 72.24.207.240 |
PD: The thing I referred to as "unthinkable" would be for Jesus to have cooked and eaten pork in John 21, as he did with the fish. Eating with the Gentiles and even being in their homes, while it certainly defied tradition, was not 'unthinkable' in the same sense. Steve: I didn't make a restriction for myself or anyone else. I simply stated that I fail to see how eating/drinking even small amounts of blood can be wrong, but mainlining it into your veins complies with the command to "abstain from blood." No one yet has been able to explain that to my satisfaction. - Les | ||
| doug_allen Intermediate Member Username: doug_allen Post Number: 255 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 67.35.72.9 |
Les, maybe you could start another thread dealing with that topic | ||
| pelfdaddy Senior Member Username: pelfdaddy Post Number: 1007 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 166.128.70.134 |
Les, Thanks for answering, but that is not an answer. I knew that you were referring to Jesus' eating of pork as unthinkable. I also know that you have to reason in the world to think that Peter saw his vision as purely metaphorical and nothing more. Paul himself said that Peter lived as a Gentile and not as a Jew. I realize you are not sending people to hell for violating Moses, but how can the things of the law be 'better' when we are speaking of life in the context of Christianity. Paul would be afraid of such talk, lest he had bestowed upon us labor in vain, as was the case with the Galatians. I don't get it. | ||
| granite Intermediate Member Username: granite Post Number: 232 Registered: 4-2006 Posted From: 72.24.207.240 |
Doug: I am done. In Judges chapter 13, God makes the eating of unclean meats relevant to the consumption of wine, specifically for pregnant women, which is why it was discussed on this thread. Steve then raised the issue of blood in relation to what is acceptable to eat for food, and I expressed my opinion that the mainstream position condoning non-autologous transfusions such as NTCC holds seems to me to be inconsistent, just as their extreme position on wine is untenable. | ||
| greg_s Intermediate Member Username: greg_s Post Number: 341 Registered: 6-2005 Posted From: 64.12.117.202 |
CONTINUING “A WINE PRIMER”… WE DRINK UNDILUTED FERMENTED WINE FOR THE HEALTH BENEFITS OR WHAT DO THE DOCTORS SAY?: Medical justification for ingesting undiluted beer, liquor and fermented wine is barred by the fact that the medical benefits of moderate undiluted alcohol consumption are reproduced and exceeded by drinking concord grape juice or by taking a baby aspirin with concord grape juice without the attendant negative side affects on the bodies systems/organs from ingesting even minute quantities of alcohol. So this leaves the Haters with justifying fermented wine drinking using only the New Testament and then only when the fermented wine is mixed with at least two parts water. As you will see below grape products (fermented and unfermented, liquid and solid) were only consumed by mixing with a large percentage of water or eaten as a food. Regarding medical justification: if you insist (i.e. We are going to drink no matter what and we are going to get our justification anywhere we can find it.) on consuming wine after an extra-Biblical pattern (i.e. fermented and unmixed with water) you are only allowed two four ounce drinks of fermented red table wine per day; but only if you are a man between 40-45 and 60 that was currently drinking prior to your 40-45th birthday. A man over 60 garners no health benefits from drinking fermented beverages. To illustrate: a standard beer/soda can is twelve ounces so your two drinks a day of fermented undiluted wine for health reasons would total two thirds of the twelve ounce can. Not very much is it? Another way to illustrate what two four ounce drinks of undiluted fermented wine is one small Styrofoam coffee cup is eight ounces. If you want to consume your fermented wine for health reasons but after a partially Biblical pattern (i.e. fermented but mixed with water) you would have to drink twenty-four ounces (at a minimum 2:1 ratio of water to wine) of this partially Biblical mixture (equivalent to two cans of soda or three small Styrofoam cups). “A WINE PRIMER” CONTINUED BELOW… | ||
| rls Junior Member Username: rls Post Number: 32 Registered: 12-2007 Posted From: 65.28.108.137 |
Greg_S that is a little bit better concerning your statements. A little bit easier to make out, and that is good. When I write up a memorandum, do other reports for my profession, such reports are constructed in a precise fashion so that it may be easily understood, including by judges, juries, prosecutors and defense lawyers. In working in a law enforcement profession, any document written can potentially be a court document, as well as emails, phone conversations, etcetera. Interestingly you insist on referring to people who use fermented products as haters NTCC, (as if you are obsessed with it). As hard as it may be to believe, there are many people who are believers in a real Jesus, a real God for that matter, who with temperance use fermented products, (of course perception in this country concerning temperance is a subject in itself). Speaking of fermented products, including lacto fermented products, I thought this might be food for thought, (no pun intended). Here is a list of products that most commonly has small amounts of alcohol: Apple juice 0.1 – 0.38 % vol Grape juice 0.15 – 1.0 % vol Sauerkraut 0.20 – 0.80 % vol Rye bread 0.34 % vol German chocolate cake 0.62 % vol This above mentioned is an English translation from a German source. As some of their products may be processed a bit differently than some products in the USA, some of those things mentioned may have a little bit more alcohol than some things here. However, I don't have all of the information at hand, yet, but I do intend to at some point. Kvas a drink from East Europe, has a little bit more alcohol, however it is considered a soft drink, that averages about 2% in alcohol content. A little less than the US 3.2% beer. Bread may have a little bit of alcohol content, depending on yeast, moisture, temperature. Bread that is stored in a moist environment does tend to turn slightly alcoholic. Furthermore given the fact that I have found hooch, (alcohol beverage made in prison from items from the kitchen or commissary), there have been many times that one of the principal ingredients is bread. Bread usually facilitates fermentation because of yeast content, (very little left alive in cooked bread, but some still), starch concentrations that have been turning to sugar, and if stored for a while before using for hooch, has started on the way to alcohol itself, if kept warm and moist, but not a high amount usually on its own. What I'm getting at Greg_S, is simply this. There are foods that contain alcohol, which you have eaten, as well as others within tee totaler organizations, and most of the time it is not realized. Some Muslim groups I have noticed are very watchful concerning foods, in that they are to have no or a very low alcohol content. Perhaps you should look at their dietary practises. | ||
| victorjohanson Junior Member Username: victorjohanson Post Number: 38 Registered: 12-2007 Posted From: 66.230.86.180 |
"Not very much is it?" It's enough. What, do you think I'm trying to get drunk or something? | ||
| doug_allen Intermediate Member Username: doug_allen Post Number: 260 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 67.35.72.9 |
posted by Rev. Greg Shunk, ntcc apologist(if not, please someone in the leadership let everyone know): "Regarding medical justification: if you insist (i.e. We are going to drink no matter what and we are going to get our justification anywhere we can find it.) on consuming wine after an extra-Biblical pattern (i.e. fermented and unmixed with water) you are only allowed two four ounce drinks of fermented red table wine per day; but only if you are a man between 40-45 and 60 that was currently drinking prior to your 40-45th birthday. A man over 60 garners no health benefits from drinking fermented beverages." Is this suppose to be NTCC systemic theology? May everyone in New Testament Christian Churches of America be encouraged by all pastors, ministers, BS teachers, et al to read your apologists commentaries. | ||
| rls Junior Member Username: rls Post Number: 36 Registered: 12-2007 Posted From: 65.28.108.137 |
More fermented foods, most all which contain alcohol, some which are even eaten by teetotalers, (total abstinence of alcoholic beverages). [edit] Fermented foods by region Nattō, a Japanese fermented soybean foodWorldwide: alcohol, wine, vinegar, olives, yogurt, bread, cheese Asia East and Southeast Asia: amazake, asinan, bai-ming, belacan, burong mangga, com ruou, dalok, doenjang (된장), douchi, jeruk, lambanog, kimchi (김치), kombucha, leppet-so, narezushi, miang, miso, nata de coco, nata de pina, natto, naw-mai-dong, pak-siam-dong, paw-tsaynob in snow (雪裡蕻), prahok, ruou nep, sake, seokbakji, soy sauce, stinky tofu, szechwan cabbage (四川泡菜), tai-tan tsoi, chiraki, tape, tempeh, totkal kimchi, yen tsai (醃菜), zha cai (榨菜) Central Asia: kumis (mare milk), kefir, shubat (camel milk) India: achar, appam, dosa, dhokla, dahi (yogurt), gundruk, idli, mixed pickle Africa: garri, hibiscus seed, hot pepper sauce, injera, lamoun makbouss, laxoox, mauoloh, msir, mslalla, oilseed, ogi, ogili, ogiri Americas: chicha, elderberry wine, kombucha, pickling (pickled vegetables), sauerkraut, lupin seed, oilseed, chocolate, vanilla, tabasco, tibicos Middle East: kushuk, lamoun makbouss, mekhalel, torshi, boza Europe: rakfisk, sauerkraut, ogórek kiszony, surströmming, mead, elderberry wine, salami, prosciutto, cultured milk products such as quark, kefir, filmjölk, crème fraîche, smetana, skyr. Oceania: poi, kaanga pirau (rotten corn) [edit] Fermented foods by type [edit] Bean-based cheonggukjang, doenjang, miso, natto, soy sauce, stinky tofu, tempeh [edit] Grain-based amazake,bread, choujiu, gamju, injera, makgeolli, ogi, sake, sikhye [edit] Vegetable-based kimchi, mixed pickle, sauerkraut [edit] Fruit-based wine, vinegar,elderberry wine [edit] Dairy-based cheese, kefir, kumis (mare milk), shubat (camel milk), cultured milk products such as quark, filmjölk, crème fraîche, smetana, skyr, yogurt [edit] Fish-based bagoong, fish sauce, Hákarl, jeotgal (젓갈), rakfisk, shrimp paste, surströmming [edit] Meat-based salami, prosciutto | ||
| pelfdaddy Senior Member Username: pelfdaddy Post Number: 1017 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 166.128.215.60 |
I notice that Peter did not say the following: "These men are not drunk as ye suppose, for they are Christians and therefore do not drink at all..." The reason he gave instead was, "...because it's only Nine in the morning!" This would be funny if it were intended as a joke. But Peter spoke directly and without a hint of irony. | ||
| imaskingwhy Intermediate Member Username: imaskingwhy Post Number: 133 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 208.79.15.3 |
Also he told them to do it in their homes as opposed to church. interesting | ||
| imaskingwhy Intermediate Member Username: imaskingwhy Post Number: 138 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 208.79.15.3 |
The wine mentioned in Scripture was not weak like water. There are a dozen or more Scriptures that make reference to "drunkenness" and it is always condemned. Here are a few: "And take heed to yourselves lest at any time your hearts be overcharged [weighed down] with surfeiting [carousing], and DRUNKENNESS, and care of this life, and so that day come upon you unaware" (Luke 21:34). "Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and DRUNKENNESS, not in chambering [licentiousness] and wantonness [lewdness], not in strife and envying. But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and MAKE NO PROVISION FOR THE FLESH, TO FULFILL THE LUSTS THEREOF" (Rom. 13:13). "Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulsions, wrath, strife, sedition's, herisies, envyings, murder, DRUNKENNESS, revelings, and such like of the which I tell you before as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things SHALL NOT INHERIT THE KINGDOM OF GOD" (Rom. 5:19-21). All these warnings being said, is there a proper use of alcohol? Yes there is. Jesus drank wine, as did all the Apostles. Jesus turned water into wine at the wedding in Cana. And surely as the host suggested, they did not save the best "grape juice" till last--it was WINE. Wine and STRONGER drinks were permissible under the law of Moses(if you thought it wasn't): "And you shall bestow that money for whatsoever your soul lusts after, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for STRONG DRINK..." (Deut. 14:26). Notice that even Paul (who sternly warned against "drunkenness"), that wine can be beneficial: "Drink no longer water, but use A LITTLE wine [don't get DRUNK] for thy stomach's sake and your often [frequent] infirmities [sicknesses]" (I Tim. 5:23). All things with moderation would be advisable if you drink. BDH | ||
| rls Junior Member Username: rls Post Number: 38 Registered: 12-2007 Posted From: 65.28.108.137 |
I wonder how many people are actually aware that what is passed off as beer, is nothing like it used to be. It was used as a source of nutrition in many parts of the world. In fact, beer when consumed in moderation is good for prevention of some types of cancer, according to one article I read. | ||
| pelfdaddy Senior Member Username: pelfdaddy Post Number: 1020 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 166.128.201.73 |
I hear if you drink enough, it will prevent old age. | ||
| greg_s Intermediate Member Username: greg_s Post Number: 354 Registered: 6-2005 Posted From: 64.12.117.202 |
CONTINUING “A WINE PRIMER”… CONTINUING WE DRINK UNDILUTED FERMENTED WINE FOR THE HEALTH BENEFITS OR WHAT DO THE DOCTORS SAY?: We almost always drink our unfermented wine diluted with at least two parts cold water (Yes, this includes communion also) and we are not even trying to justify undiluted fermented wine use in our own life. Also, since you are so health conscious ensure that you drink eight to ten glasses of water per day and eat six small meals per day as is also prescribed by doctors. Also, don’t forget to follow the food pyramid or some other eating guideline; although someone messed up and did not include any type of undiluted alcohol let alone two extra-Biblical (fermented and undiluted) four ounce glasses of undiluted fermented wine per day in any food pyramid we have ever seen. Also, get enough sleep and exercise each day. Don’t eat before you go to bed. Get enough fiber in your diet. Limit caffeine intake. Severely limit intake of fats that are solid at room temperature (e.g. butter, bacon fat et al). Severely limit intake of highly processed flour and sugar. Use only olive and canola oil in cooking et al. Limit intake of nitrates (found in bacon, lunch meat et al). Take nutritional supplements. We do all of the above (with the exception of ingesting undiluted or diluted fermented wine) and much more and we are not even trying to justify undiluted fermented wine use in our own life. The reason why the praise-God-let’s-drink crowd always eventually resorts to or even starts with the medical argument is because that is their strongest justification for their position, not the Bible as you may/could be learning from this greg_s article. The only problem with the medical argument for fermented wine use is, as stated above, an aspirin taken with concord grape juice each day has the same (more) health benefit than the undiluted fermented wine without the negative impact on the body’s systems/organs caused by ingesting even minute amounts of alcohol. Also, some of the purported benefits of undiluted fermented wine consumption are even replicated by eating peanuts et al. “A WINE PRIMER” CONTINUED BELOW… | ||
| victorjohanson Junior Member Username: victorjohanson Post Number: 44 Registered: 12-2007 Posted From: 66.223.233.130 |
"Use only olive and canola oil in cooking et al." Olive, yes; canola, no. Here's some good info for you: http://www.westonaprice.org/knowyourfats/conola.html |
