mazaje:

Vinegar wine is alcoholic. . . .Jhn 19:29 Now a vessel full of sour wine(vinegar) was sitting there; and they filled a sponge with sour wine, put it on hyssop, and put it to His mouth.
Jhn 19:30 So when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, "It is finished!" And bowing His head, He gave up His spirit.

There it is spin master, spin it. . .

No one is arguing with you that vinegar wine is not alcoholic they probably gave it to Him because He was about to die but what suggests to you that He drank it?

"They gave him vinegar to drink mingled with gall: and when he had tasted thereof, he would not drink" -- Matthew 27:34

This is why I said that it will be difficult for you to understand simple scriptural analysis especially when you come with unclean hands.

Are you pretending you didn't see John 19: 29,30?

^
See who's pretending like Matthew's not scripture. Stare no further, it's you italo.

OLAADEGBU:

No one is arguing with you that vinegar wine is not alcoholic they probably gave it to Him because He was about to die but what suggests to you that He drank it?

"They gave him vinegar to drink mingled with gall: and when he had tasted thereof, he would not drink" -- Matthew 27:34

This is why I said that it will be difficult for you to understand simple scriptural analysis especially when you come with unclean hands.

That is yet another contradiction in the gospels. . .Mathews account says that he did not drink but John said he drank so which is it?. . . .Which of them is saying the truth?. . . .

Don't get it twisted. Both verses are not the same event. Matthew's account was before he was crucified while John's was just before he died.

@image123, I am not trying to prove to you that Jesus refused an alcoholic drink in his lifetime on earth so there is no need to consider Matthew's account. What I am trying to prove is that Jesus drank alcohol, and John's account proves that. Or doesn't it?

italo:

Don't get it twisted. Both verses are not the same event. Matthew's account was before he was crucified while John's was just before he died.

@image123, I am not trying to prove to you that Jesus refused an alcoholic drink in his lifetime on earth so there is no need to consider Matthew's account. What I am trying to prove is that Jesus drank alcohol, and John's account proves that. Or doesn't it?

Matthew clearly states that Jesus REFUSED an alcoholic drink, yes? So you should consider it in your opinion formations.

italo:

Are you pretending you didn't see John 19: 29,30?

So if Jesus received it at the point of death does that give you the green light you need to go on binging?

mazaje:

That is yet another contradiction in the gospels. . .Mathews account says that he did not drink but John said he drank so which is it?. . . .Which of them is saying the truth?. . . .

Do you believe any of them are stating the truth?

italo:

Are you pretending you didn't see John 19: 29,30?

John 19:29-30 was actually the fulfillment of the Messianic prophecy in Psalm 69:21 which says:

"They gave me poison for food, and for my thirst they gave me sour wine to drink"

If you insist on drinking in-toxic-ated drinks don't use this as an excuse.

italo:

Don't get it twisted. Both verses are not the same event. Matthew's account was before he was crucified while John's was just before he died.

@image123, I am not trying to prove to you that Jesus refused an alcoholic drink in his lifetime on earth so there is no need to consider Matthew's account. What I am trying to prove is that Jesus drank alcohol, and John's account proves that. Or doesn't it?

Do you think it is only 2 events? Here is another one.

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

Image123:
Matthew clearly states that Jesus REFUSED an alcoholic drink, yes? So you should consider it in your opinion formations.

This is a very good point that I feel he is still pondering on.

OLAADEGBU:

This is a very good point that I feel he is still pondering on.

Didn't you see the part where he stated that Jesus refused the wine before he was crucified but drank it after he was crucified before he died? Does the verse in John not appear in you bible?

OLAADEGBU:

John 19:29-30 was actually the fulfillment of the Messianic prophecy in Psalm 69:21 which says:

"They gave me poison for food, and for my thirst they gave me sour wine to drink"

If you insist on drinking in-toxic-ated drinks don't use this as an excuse.

So what? After lying all over the thread you finally admit that Jesus drank alcoholic wine. . .I thought the bible says he gave his disciples wine to drink during the last supper?. . .

mazaje:

Didn't you see the part where he stated that Jesus refused the wine before he was crucified but drank it after he was crucified before he died? Does the verse in John not appear in you bible?

Why not wait for the time you want to die before drinking it?

mazaje:

So what? After lying all over the thread you finally admit that Jesus drank alcoholic wine. . .I thought the bible says he gave his disciples wine to drink during the last supper?. . .

You are still thinking, assuming and supposing. Why don't you come up with concrete evidence to support your conjectures?

OLAADEGBU:

Why not wait for the time you want to die before drinking it?

He said he drinks and for that he was labelled a drunkard. . . .You on the other hand have been lying all along saying he accepted inviatation and because of that he was called a drunkard. . . . . .I asked you to show where you got that lie from and you ran away. . .

mazaje:

He said he drinks and for that he was labelled a drunkard. . . .You on the other hand have been lying all along saying he accepted inviatation and because of that he was called a drunkard. . . . . .I asked you to show where you got that lie from and you ran away. . .

The onus is on you to quote where He drank alcohol. The fact that a person honours invitation does not necessarily mean that he drank alcohol, in the same passage they called John the Baptist a possessed man was that a true statement?

OLAADEGBU:

The onus is on you to quote where He drank alcohol. The fact that a person honours invitation does not necessarily mean that he drank alcohol, in the same passage they called John the Baptist a possessed man was that a true statement?

Stop telling lies for Jesus. . .No where did he say he accepts or honors invitation. . .He said he eats and for that they called him a glutton, he said he drinks and for that they called him a drunkard. . .They don't call people that drink water or juice drunkards do they?. . .What was he drinking when the people called him a drunkard?. . .

mazaje:

Stop telling lies for Jesus. . .No where did he say he accepts or honors invitation. . .He said he eats and for that they called him a glutton, he said he drinks and for that they called him a drunkard. . .They don't call people that drink water or juice drunkards do they?. . .What was he drinking when the people called him a drunkard?. . .

Whose moral Law are you using to determine that telling lies is wrong?

OLAADEGBU:

Whose moral Law are you using to determine that telling lies is wrong?

Man's moral law. . .

mazaje:

Man's moral law. . .

What is man's moral law and where did it come from?

OLAADEGBU:

What is man's moral law and where did it come from?

The laws that men set through consensus to make their societies better, it may or may not be good, it comes as a result of experimentation and practice. . . .

mazaje:

The laws that men set through consensus to make their societies better, it may or may not be good, it comes as a result of experimentation and practice. . . .

Aren't we simply chemical accidents? Why should we feel compelled by any consensus to behave in any particular fashion? or do you believe that we are moral agents?

OLAADEGBU:

Aren't we simply chemical accidents? Why should we feel compelled by any consensus to behave in any particular fashion? or do you believe that we are moral agents?

Because all of us want to be happy and live in an orderly society where there is little or no chaos. . .To achieve that we need to make moral lawas based on consensus that will help us achieve that. . .That is why we have national assemblies and Parliament to create laws through consensus that will make us thrive and live in a society with little chaos, if the laws created arent good they get to be changed over time. . ..

mazaje:

Because all of us want to be happy and live in an orderly society where there is little or no chaos. . .To achieve that we need to make moral lawas based on consensus that will help us achieve that. . .That is why we have national assemblies and Parliament to create laws through consensus that will make us thrive and live in a society with little chaos, if the laws created arent good they get to be changed over time. . ..

If man's laws of morality are just what bring the most happiness to most people, why would it be wrong to kill just one innocent person if it happened to make everyone else a lot happier?

OLAADEGBU:

If man's laws of morality are just what bring the most happiness to most people, why would it be wrong to kill just one innocent person if it happened to make everyone else a lot happier?

You said an innocent man, how will killing an innocent man make people happy? . . .People make laws through consensus that will make them live in societies without chaos . . .killing innocent people will lead to chaos. . .

mazaje:

You said an innocent man, how will killing an innocent man make people happy? . . .People make laws through consensus that will make them live in societies without chaos . . .killing innocent people will lead to chaos. . .

The Nazis certainly thought Hitler was innocent, the majority of muslims think that OBL was innocent, why would a lot of people in other societies be happy that these "innocent" people died?

OLAADEGBU:

The Nazis certainly thought Hitler was innocent, the majority of muslims think that OBL was innocent, why would a lot of people in other societies be happy that these "innocent" people died?

OBL is not innocent in the eyes of every body, his followers might think he was innocent, but certainly not the Americans. . . .Hitler might be considred to be innocent in the eyes of the nazis but not in the eyes of every body. . .

mazaje:

OBL is not innocent in the eyes of every body, his followers might think he was innocent, but certainly not the Americans. . . .Hitler might be considred to be innocent in the eyes of the nazis but not in the eyes of every body. . .

Are the Muslims and the Nazis not part of the "everybody"? or is it just the Americans that are the "everybody" you are referring to? Why would these people in other societies be happy that these "innocent" people died?

OLAADEGBU:

Are the Muslims and the Nazis not part of the "everybody"? or is it just the Americans that are the "everybody" you are referring to?

Muslims that believe it is right to kill infidels will support OBL, Nazis will support Hitler because they have been made to accept Nazism by the society. . .Others that have been thought other wise will see their actions as wrong. . . .Do you support all the genocide carried out by the chosen ones of yaweh in the bible?. . .What about the atrocities in the Hadiths? Do you believe they are right or wrong, why or why not?

mazaje:
Muslims that believe it is right to kill infidels will support OBL, Nazis will support Hitler because they have been made to accept Nazism by the society. . .Others that have been thought other wise will see their actions as wrong. . . .

So who is to say what the absolute moral code should be? Any standard of our own making would have to be subjective.

mazaje:
Do you support all the genocide carried out by the chosen ones of yaweh in the bible?. . .What about the atrocities in the Hadiths? Do you believe they are right or wrong, why or why not?

If you call it genocide then you don't know what's coming. God has sentenced the whole of mankind to death because we have broken God's Moral Law. All of us are waiting on death row and instead of using our own subjective moral codes in judging God, we should rather judge ourselves according to the Moral Law of God. When we conscientiously do that we will discover that we have committed a lot of sins and are deserving of punishment. Yet God out of love, paid the penalty for our sin so we would not have to be judged.

OLAADEGBU:

So who is to say what the absolute moral code should be? Any standard of our own making would have to be subjective.

All laws are our own making?. . .Who created the islamic sharia laws for example?. . .What is the role of the US senate for example?. . ..

If you call it genocide then you don't know what's coming. God has sentenced the whole of mankind to death because we have broken God's Moral Law. All of us are waiting on death row and instead of using our own subjective moral codes in judging God, we should rather judge ourselves according to the Moral Law of God. When we conscientiously do that we will discover that we have committed a lot of sins and are deserving of punishment. Yet God out of love, paid the penalty for our sin so we would not have to be judged.

You are completely deluded. ..Your God has sentenced people to death, eh?. . .That fictitious and imaginary assertion exists only in your imaginations and not in reality. . .There is NO moral law of any God you are yet to establish it. . .Sharia is the only moral law of God, no?. . . .You haven't answered my question, you evaded it as usual. . .