Jesus's first recorded miracle was the turning of water into wine.Although there has been endless debates over the nature of this wine(alcoholic or non -alcoholic).most pentecostal churches today preach total abstinence,I would like 2 know if there is any scripture that explicitly forbids the use of alcohol if not what premise is this teaching based on?.did Jesus really change water 2 alcohol

Of course it was real wine, what did you think it was, black currant juice or ribena 

Even Paul advised Timothy to take some wine ( only a very little ) for his stomachs sake.

"Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities." - 1 Timothy 5:23


And also, we are admonished to be filled with the Holy Spirit and not with excess wine.

"And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;" - Ephesians 5:10

So basically people did drink wine in the old days and many do today, but the emphasis was on LITTLE and not MUCH.

Like so many  self acclaimed  prophets say, that this was not alcoholic wine but black currant juice , lol  , tell me then , why Paul will admonish Timothy to take only a little 

They never stop twisting the bible verses to suit their legalistic man made doctrines.

Anyway the rule of the thumb for me is not to drink alcohol AT ALL for four reasons :

1. So that I will not make a fellow brother or sister stumble in their faith

2. In this day in which we live, taking wine will normally lead to all sorts of behavior and the alcoholic content has been enhanced so it is more intoxicating

3. I will rather abstain as well for my children sake

4. It is of no benefit to me since I am not ill in anyway by God's grace.

Even the story of the changing of water into wine makes clear that it was alcoholic. People accused the celebrant of having kept the better wine until guests were drunk, whereas the normal thing was to start with the superior one, and then introduce the cheap one after guests are drunk and can no longer tell the difference.

Even Jesus himself implied that he drank alcohol in Matthew11

Whatz happening here?

jesus spred christianity 2 advertise his home-made wine business. bu since many ppls wer now drinking wine, it was bespoiling muhammads zamzam business, so he in turn spread islam to sell out his product,

In Mathew 12:36,'But I say unto you that every idle word that men shall, they shall give account thereof in the day of Judgement'. This is the words of Jesus.
Beware of blasphemy against Christ; Remember God is merciful,and as well as a consuming fire.You need to repent, because it is this same Jesus that will forgive and save you. In John 14:6,'Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me'.


Jesus turned water into wine, yes. The question is this, which type of wine? strong intoxicating wine or non alcoholic wine (vine-as he drank with His apostles)? Offcourse, that was non alcoholic wine!! I corinthians 5:11 explains that God hates drunkenness. Again read Luke 21:34 (Christ cannot go against His word), Romans 13:13. See again Prov. 20:1. Can you be spiritual under the influence of strong drink. The answer is NO. You will rather be carnal, and a carnal mind is enmity with God----and as many as are carnally mind will die spiritually. Repent today, and Christ will break the yoke of alcoholism in your life.

In I Corinthians 6:9,10 the Bible says,'Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind(i.e Homosexuals, Lesbians), nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. Further in 1Peter 1:15,16-'But as He which has called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation (or conduct), because it is written be ye holy; for I am holy. Also in Galatians 6:19-21, 'Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these, adultery, fornication, envyings, murders, drunkenness

The worst that can happen to someone is self deception. That is why the scripture stated above that you should not deceive yourself. The grace of God is freely available to a christian to live a holy life, if he first believes in the word of the Lord and pray. If you feel you cannot be holy, so will it be to you. But if you will believe that Holiness is possible, and study scriptures prayerfully and ask for more grace, and cut off from all appearance of evil, consecrating your life to the Lord. Love teachings and teachers that emphasize holiness of life, depending on the grace of God, you will be made and kept righteous by the Lord.

Do not be deceived by compromising preachers who do not believe in holiness of life because without holiness no one can see the Lord (Hebrews 12:14). All you need to do is to pray for the grace.

^^^^^^^^^

It's OK to preach against drunkenness or even against alcohol. But equating the two shows a major lack of understanding of the concepts you're discussing. Why don't you look for a scripture that speaks against alcohol before you conclude that being against drunkenness contradicts being in favor of alcohol? Or you've not come across anyone that drank alcohol and was not drunk?

gsuccess:

In Mathew 12:36,'But I say unto you that every idle word that men shall, they shall give account thereof in the day of Judgement'. This is the words of Jesus.
Beware of blasphemy against Christ; Remember God is merciful,and as well as a consuming fire.You need to repent, because it is this same Jesus that will forgive and save you. In John 14:6,'Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me'.


Jesus turned water into wine, yes. The question is this, which type of wine? strong intoxicating wine or non alcoholic wine (vine-as he drank with His apostles)? Offcourse, that was non alcoholic wine!! I corinthians 5:11 explains that God hates drunkenness. Again read Luke 21:34 (Christ cannot go against His word), Romans 13:13. See again Prov. 20:1. Can you be spiritual under the influence of strong drink. The answer is NO. You will rather be carnal, and a carnal mind is enmity with God----and as many as are carnally mind will die spiritually. Repent today, and Christ will break the yoke of alcoholism in your life.

In I Corinthians 6:9,10 the Bible says,'Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind(i.e Homosexuals, Lesbians), nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. Further in 1Peter 1:15,16-'But as He which has called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation (or conduct), because it is written be ye holy; for I am holy. Also in Galatians 6:19-21, 'Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these, adultery, fornication, envyings, murders, drunkenness

The worst that can happen to someone is self deception. That is why the scripture stated above that you should not deceive yourself. The grace of God is freely available to a christian to live a holy life, if he first believes in the word of the Lord and pray. If you feel you cannot be holy, so will it be to you. But if you will believe that Holiness is possible, and study scriptures prayerfully and ask for more grace, and cut off from all appearance of evil, consecrating your life to the Lord. Love teachings and teachers that emphasize holiness of life, depending on the grace of God, you will be made and kept righteous by the Lord.

Do not be deceived by compromising preachers who do not believe in holiness of life because without holiness no one can see the Lord (Hebrews 12:14). All you need to do is to pray for the grace.

obviously it has to be non-alcoholic wine to fit into your legalistic man made church doctrine. You have no scripture to back up this claim.


Now to the point, The wine was fermented of course which is why the bible teaches temperance in ALL thingS.

I have seen some people  sip a glass of wine and no further, but I have see others drink a whole bottle of wine, add to that beer and whiskey and act like Fools.

Why did Paul tell Timothy to take a LITTLE black currant juice WINE  and not MUCH black currant juice  WINE

And why did the bible also say do not be filled with excess wine 


I am personally against  whiskey, brandy and those others referred to as STRONG DRINK.  But wine is only strong drink when you drink with no self control.

Stop misquoting scripture to make you feel HOLIER THAN THOU.

Its all about self control, the same people who are against wine are also gluttons.

The bible is against any form  of excess be it food, wine, talking, etc etc

@gsuccess:
If you think drinking alcohol is the same as being drunk would you also say that eating is the same thing as being gluttonous? The text below is taken from Matthew chapter 11 verses 16 to 19.

To what can I compare this generation? They are like children sitting in the market-places and calling out to others:
'We played the flute for you, and you did not dance; we sang a dirge, and you did not mourn.'
For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, 'He has a demon.'
The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.' But wisdom is proved right by her actions.

You can clearly see that Jesus drank what John the baptist did not drink and he ate what John did not eat.

Honestly if there was weed at d time "jesus",he must ve smoked some weed,d illustrative jesus was a rastaman.

Bla bla frosbel, bla bla. You're guilty of what you accused the other of. 'of course it should be fermented wine ko', of course it should be frosbel ni.

The below concerns wine consumed when commemorating the Last Supper ("Holy Communion" and almost certainly the type of wine that Jesus drank.

1 Cor 11 (edited)

20 When you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat, 21 for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk

^^

Enigma TOTALLY settles the issue!

Except if what some are saying is that Paul meant people were getting drunk on Ribena.

^they got drunk on black currant juice! Of course there is no such thing as non-alcoholic wine in the Bible.

in judges 13:4
leviticus 10:9

do not drink wine nor strong drink

^
As we were usually asked during CRK in those days: "To whom and on what occasion?" Rightly divide the word.

Enigma:

The below concerns wine consumed when commemorating the Last Supper ("Holy Communion" and almost certainly the type of wine that Jesus drank.

1 Cor

The context of that passage is talking about being full with food(solid or liquid) and otherwise. Anyways, it's not esoteric knowledge that the wine used for communion was the fruit of the vine.
And it's safe to imply that responsible Jews settled for new wine ahead of old wine. It doesn't take a B.Sc before one knows that new wine is new/fresh, while old wine is the fermented one. You'd unfortunately be deceiving yourself to use the communion incidences as an excuse to take gulder and star and co.

^
Can one get drunk on grape juice as you seem to imply? The verse quoted from 1 Corinthians does not suggest so. The Bible only explicitly forbids wine for two groups of people:
1) The High Priest when he was ministering in the tabernacle.
Lev 10:8 And the LORD spake unto Aaron, saying,
Lev 10:9 Do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations:

2) Nazarites during their vow of separation:
Num 6:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When either man or woman shall separate themselves to vow a vow of a Nazarite, to separate themselves unto the LORD:
Num 6:3 He shall separate himself from wine and strong drink, and shall drink no vinegar of wine, or vinegar of strong drink, neither shall he drink any liquor of grapes, nor eat moist grapes, or dried.

We should be careful in adding our traditions and interpretations to God's word.

And concerning your assertion about new wine:

Image123:

And it's safe to imply that responsible Jews settled for new wine ahead of old wine. It doesn't take a B.Sc before one knows that new wine is new/fresh, while old wine is the fermented one. You'd unfortunately be deceiving yourself to use the communion incidences as an excuse to take gulder and star and co.

Read in Acts:
Acts 2:12-13. And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this? Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.

So obviously people did get drunk on new wine!

^
It sEems you're the one getting your traditions and interpretations wrong on my post. You seem to be assuming things i've not said. The context of the corinthians 11 passage talk of EATING and SUPPER, and it's about been hungry or full.
To cut your chase, i didn't say wine contains or doesn't contain alcohol(and that's not an issue considering that even drugs contain alcohol). My post was on frosbel's assertion that of course it's FERMENTED WINE. You'd not be rightly dividing truth to class alcoholic content of panadol or sugar with the bottle of gulder.

Gsmxpert:

in judges 13:4
leviticus 10:9

do not drink wine nor strong drink

Why didn't you finish the line or write what precedes it?
The full line reads " do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou,nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die ( Leviticus 10:9).
Show your ignorance with something else not with the word of God.

^Don't get your knickers in a twist.
Here is what you said. It appears you have adopted Joagbaje's selective interpretation style:

Image123:

The context of that passage is talking about being full with food(solid or liquid) and otherwise. Anyways, it's not esoteric knowledge that the wine used for communion was the fruit of the vine.

What passage?
1 Cor 11:20-21 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.

1) First you make an appeal to vague authority in claiming: "Anyways, it's not esoteric knowledge that the wine used for communion was the fruit of the vine." This is the usual trick with words that the WoF crowd are always playing. First of all by definition: all wine is fruit of the vine. Therefore, it is a falsity to imply as you do that there is wine that is not "fruit of the vine."

2) What is the activity for Christians meeting together in worship. As we see here:
Acts 20:7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight. Also cf Acts 2:42. But as we see the Corinthians were a rowdy lot and here is Paul admonishing them that they were bring disrepute and treating the Lord's Supper with disrespect. You attempt to parlay your position into implying that verses 20-21 is not about the Lord's Supper. That this is untenable is shown by the context where we see Paul in verse 23 write:
1 Cor 11:22-24 What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

So from the verses in 1 Corinthians 11, we see that some did get drunk on communion wine thus showing that it was alcoholic!

Image123:

And it's safe to imply that responsible Jews settled for new wine ahead of old wine. It doesn't take a B.Sc before one knows that new wine is new/fresh, while old wine is the fermented one. You'd unfortunately be deceiving yourself to use the communion incidences as an excuse to take gulder and star and co.

^
No one here is making excuses for drunkenness or using the Lord's Supper as an excuse to take beer. But there are no Bible verses that support the legalistic interpretation that forbids Christians from taking alcoholic beverages. You also make an unproven claim "that responsible Jews settled for new wine ahead of old wine." Where is the support for this position of yours. As I pointed out earlier the verse of Acts 2 demolishes your premise which is that new wine was not alcoholic: Acts 2:12-13. And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this? Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.
Obviously the onlookers thought the disciples were drunk on new wine. Why would they have thought this if new wine was non-alcoholic. I guess you didn't see that verse because it pulls down your new wine hypothesis.

By all means there are good and Christian reasons to avoid alcohol if that is your personal decision but do not forbid that which God has not forbidden by your legalistic traditions. There are also good reasons to take some wine as well.
1 Tim 5:23 Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities.

The Pharisees were very good at that. Here is an example:
Matt 23:18 And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty.
From a human perspective it sounds all so holy and religious, doesn't it? But here is Jesus' response to their foolishness: Matt 23:19 Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift?

Quick questions for you:
1 Tim 3:8 Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;
Why does the qualifier "much" occur in this verse? You do realize the world of difference in meaning if the word much is dropped from the verse, don't you?

And to help you better elucidate your position: The Hebrew word for new wine in the OT is tirosh

Properly this is the fresh grape juice (called also mishreh, Nu 6:3), even when still in the grape (Isa 65:8. But unfermented grape juice is a very difficult thing to keep without the aid of modern antiseptic precautions, and its preservation in the warm and not over-cleanly conditions of ancient Palestine was impossible. Consequently, tirosh came to mean wine that was not fully aged (although with full intoxicating properties (Judg 9:13; Hos 4:11)) or wine when considered specifically as the product of grapes (Deut 12:17; Deut 18:4, etc.). The Septuagint always (except Isa 65:8; Hos 4:11) translates by oinos and the Targums by chamar. the King James Version has "wine" 26 times, "new wine" 11 times, "sweet wine" in Mic 6:15; the Revised Version (British and American) "vintage" in Num 18:12; Mic 6:15 (with the same change in Neh 10:37; Neh 10:39 the Revised Version margin; Isa 62:8 the English Revised Version margin). Otherwise the English Revised Version has left the King James Version unchanged, while the American Standard Revised Version uses "new wine" throughout

aletheia, don't even start with me.

Here is what you said. It appears you have adopted Joagbaje's selective interpretation style

i've not been studying him and don't know his style.

What passage?

Is this a question?

First you make an appeal to vague authority in claiming: "Anyways, it's not esoteric knowledge that the wine used for communion was the fruit of the vine."

Don't know what you've been reading, here
s the authority i was appealing to below in red.
Matthew 26:29  But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.
Luke 22:18  For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come
Like i said, it doesn't take esoteric knowledge.

This is the usual trick with words that the WoF crowd are always playing. First of all by definition: all wine is fruit of the vine. Therefore, it is a falsity to imply as you do that there is wine that is not "fruit of the vine."

You don't have to call me names. the fruit of the vine implies freshness/new like i bolded if you'd notice in the passage above. Maybe i should have said then that it's not esoteric knowledge that the wine used for communion was the new fruit of the vine.

What is the activity for Christians meeting together in worship. As we see here:
Acts 20:7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight. Also cf Acts 2:42. But as we see the Corinthians were a rowdy lot and here is Paul admonishing them that they were bring disrepute and treating the Lord's Supper with disrespect. You attempt to parlay your position into implying that verses 20-21 is not about the Lord's Supper.

Ofcourse, it's the Lord's supper, stop all these misimplying of my positions. You defly know i didn't say that, now it's that i implied that. Is Lord's supper not food? Don't they eat it? Bring me to speed on this pls?

So from the verses in 1 Corinthians 11, we see that some did get drunk on communion wine thus showing that it was alcoholic!

Here is what we see in 1Corinthians 11,
1Corinthians 11:21  For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.
The above is a sentence talking about supper(the Lord's supper before you click the 'imply' button) and eating. The conditions of the 'eaters' is described as one part hungry, and (in all fairness) the other part full. The word druken there in fairness means full/satisfied as compared to hungry. i don't think it refers to been intoxicated with alcohol. Paul wasn't correcting intoxication here but the way in which the supper was taken.

No one here is making excuses for drunkenness or using the Lord's Supper as an excuse to take beer.

You're kidding right? Better you'd speak for yourself or did you miss deepS or dorox or pagan9ja?

You also make an unproven claim "that responsible Jews settled for new wine ahead of old wine." Where is the support for this position of yours.

John 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.

As I pointed out earlier the verse of Acts 2 demolishes your premise which is that new wine was not alcoholic:

Don't be a false accuser. i said it again clearly in my last post that  i didn't say wine contains or doesn't contain alcohol(and that's not an issue considering that even drugs contain alcohol). My post was on frosbel's assertion that of course it's FERMENTED WINE.

Oh and so now i'm not just Jo's adoptee and woF, i'm also a pharisee and foolish? Because we're not on the same page here? Soon i'll be a fraudster and a scammer because i don't 'fit your theology'. Take am easy o.

1 Tim 3:8 Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;
Why does the qualifier "much" occur in this verse? You do realize the world of difference in meaning if the word much is dropped from the verse, don't you?

What's with the snide? Well to answer your question fully, you may need to know what 'wine' connotes. And also pls note that anything and everything outside water is basically 'wine' in scriptures(kjv), even your orange juice and soft drinks. Really what you need is open eyes to see the pain, the hold and the terror of alcohol. i'm yet to see one who drinks alcohol who never got drunk, won't be surprised if i start HEARING of such now. i'll be v.v.v.v. very shocked if i actually saw one. It's about a year now one of m neighbours, he used to give me these sort of logic too. He had all the wine scriptures and a bottle at his fingertips, his liver failed him, plus he nearly ruined his family(and that's a lucky story among the millions)

^
I would have let your comment pass but for some egregious untruths.

Image123:

Well to answer your question fully, you may need to know what 'wine' connotes. And also pls note that anything and everything outside water is basically 'wine' in scriptures(kjv), even your orange juice and soft drinks.

This is exactly just what Joagbaje and co do. Where exactly are the scriptures that say this? You do not even differentiate where your personal opinion ends and Bible truth begins! So orange juice is now wine! Nothing that one will not hear due to faulty exegesis on NL.

BTW; you go on and on about "new wine"; when shown conclusively that new wine is alcoholic; you retreated into the position of "fruit of the vine". It is because of this anticipated position of yours that I posted the specific verses from Numbers 6 as well as the dictionary reference to tirosh. Here is another question for you? Why were Nazarites expressly forbidden from eating anything pertaining to grapes during the period of their separation? How does this compare to Jesus words in Matthew 26 & Luke 22. What does that tell you about the prophetic significance of the Nazarites and Jesus Christ as the firstfruits from the dead? You do not see how interconnected and linked is all the scriptures. There is no command or word that is out of place or without a purpose. Their testimony is of Jesus.

Furthermore, your evasion of 1 Tim 3:8 and non-answer of 1 Tim 5:23 is noted.

Image123:

Here is what we see in 1Corinthians 11,
1Corinthians 11:21  For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.
The above is a sentence talking about supper(the Lord's supper before you click the 'imply' button) and eating. The conditions of the 'eaters' is described as one part hungry, and (in all fairness) the other part full. [size=16pt]The word druken there in fairness means full/satisfied as compared to hungry.[/size] i don't think it refers to been intoxicated with alcohol. Paul wasn't correcting intoxication here but the way in which the supper was taken.

^
You are indeed too hasty to reply. Why don't you take James' advice? Be slow to speak. Were it not for your moniker, I would I have thought I was discussing with one-whom-shall-not-be-named. So drunken means to be full/satisfied? What do you make of this verse then? Eph 5:18 And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit; Do people get drunk on food? For your edification: here is what drunken means:

Noah Webster's 1828 dictionary] 1. Intoxicated; inebriated with strong liquor.
2. Given to drunkenness; as a drunken butler.
3. Saturated with liquor or moisture; drenched.
4. Proceeding from intoxication; done in a state of drunkenness[/quote]

Moreover even in the Greek original the word translated drunken is μεθύω methuo (meth-oo'-o) v. 1. to drink to intoxication, i.e. get drunk. [G3184] You can confirm for yourself. This word occurs 6 times in the NT and is translated as drunken 4 times as:
Acts 2:15 For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.
1 Cor 11:21 For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.
1 Thess 5:7 For they that sleep sleep in the night; and they that be drunken are drunken in the night.
Rev 17:6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.

Does any of these suggest aught but intoxication? Not even the other 2 occurrences in John 2:10 and Rev 17:2 do; so whence cometh your intepretation of the word drunken?

Furthermore in trying to prop up your erroneous exegesis of 1 Cor 11:21; you attempted to smuggle in a false dichotomy between new wine and old wine with regards to their intoxicant properties. A position that Acts 2 destroys hence your redoubt to "fruit of the vine". 

[quote author=Image123:

Oh and so now i'm not just Jo's adoptee and woF, i'm also a pharisee and foolish? Because we're not on the same page here? Soon i'll be a fraudster and a scammer because i don't 'fit your theology'. Take am easy o.

^
Who called you a Pharisee or foolish? I made a remark concerning the Pharisees' twisting of scriptures and how Jesus rebuked their foolishness. Or are you like the old woman in Chinua Achebe's Things Fall Apart who's always uncomfortable when people around her are talking about dried bones?

Image123:

i'm yet to see one who drinks alcohol who never got drunk, won't be surprised if i start HEARING of such now. i'll be v.v.v.v. very shocked if i actually saw one. It's about a year now one of m neighbours, he used to give me these sort of logic too. He had all the wine scriptures and a bottle at his fingertips, his liver failed him, plus he nearly ruined his family(and that's a lucky story among the millions)

^
But this is an emotional argument compounded by tradition. Millions around the world ruin their health every year through eating. Lots of people also take alcohol in moderation. That you have not met any of them is entirely your affair. Why don't you condemn eating as well?
As I stated earlier:

aletheia:

By all means there are good and Christian reasons to avoid alcohol if that is your personal decision but do not forbid that which God has not forbidden by your legalistic traditions. There are also good reasons to take some wine as well.
1 Tim 5:23 Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities.

No Christian needs legalistic man-made traditions to refrain from alcohol. The power of Christ in us is sufficient to help us abstain totally from taking alcohol if so needed. What you don't realize was that wine was an integral part of the meal in Jesus' time and is so in some parts of the world even now.

It's all very simple and straight-forward really

Drink wuteva u want, Just don't get sht-faced as u may then wake up the next morning to a Hangover 1/2 type adventure

I am truly disappointed by the disingenuity of image123's posts --- I guess nothing is surprising on this forum, but still . . .

Anyway this is what happened when Jesus himself celebrated the Last Supper: Matthew 26

26While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”

27Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

30When they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.

I suppose that according to image123's logic, when Jesus said "drink" there, he meant "be fairly fully satisfied with food".

EDIT The same 1 Cor 11 gives the lie to image123's interpretation when Paul asked: don't you have houses to eat or drink in?

Why do we have to deceive ourselves? What is the point of denying that which is straightforward? Look, even many non-religious people will tell you that drunkenness is not good. I haven't seen a Christian (oh, maybe one person implied it) on this board who says drunkenness is good.

On this thread at least, no one is saying drunkenness is good. But not supporting drunkenness does not require lies and a juvenile mentality. The truth and the mature mentality is that the Bible does not prohibit the drinking of alcohol in all instances. The truth is also that in all probability, according to the Bible, the wine that Jesus drank was alcoholic wine. So why lie, why be immature, why twist that passage in 1 Corinthians 11? It is all rather pitiful!

But we make His love too narrow
By false limits of our own;
And we magnify His strictness
With a zeal He will not own.

From "There's a Wideness in God's Mercy"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnXvO2S6ktU

okay, so i should quote all you have said to give you the idea that i'm not evading your posts, very funny ideas you've got aletheia.

I would have let your comment pass but for some egregious untruths.

stop flattering me.

This is exactly just what Joagbaje and co do. Where exactly are the scriptures that say this? You do not even differentiate where your personal opinion ends and Bible truth begins! So orange juice is now wine! Nothing that one will not hear due to faulty exegesis on NL.

The bolded was all you need to type here. BTW, i thought i was careful enough to use the words 'basically' and 'kjv'. Here's what i said and its what i defend below. (Well to answer your question fully, you may need to know what 'wine' connotes. And also pls note that anything and everything outside water is basically 'wine' in scriptures(kjv), even your orange juice and soft drinks.)
What i mean here is that almost/(basically, majorly) everything liquid aside water is translated as wine in the kjv Bible. Maybe its a lack of vocabulary or words, by the writers, to demarcate the different drinks but i hardly find the words like beer or juice or malt or soft drink or mineral etc in the kjv. I believe they had fruit juice and drank fruit juice in those days, and its not hard for me to figure that they would also group it as 'wine'. It's quite unlike our days of advanced taxonomy. What they generalised as 'wine', 'meat', 'bread', 'oil', 'milk' are not exactly the same as what we call or limit those names to today. for instance, grape juice yet in the grape is referred to as wine,
Isaiah 65:8  Thus saith the LORD, As the new wine is found in the cluster, and one saith, Destroy it not; for a blessing is in it: so will I do for my servants' sakes, that I may not destroy them all.
One usually should look at the context, sometimes it's referring to judgement, sometimes to the wine you advocate for.

BTW; you go on and on about "new wine"; when shown conclusively that new wine is alcoholic; you retreated into the position of "fruit of the vine".

It seems you're arguing with the wrong person here. i just re-checked again to be double sure. i mentioned the fruit of the vine ever before i mentioned 'alcohol' or 'new wine'. It's in my second post on this thread where i said " it's not esoteric knowledge that the wine used for communion was the fruit of the vine". i'm yet to say that new wine is non-alcoholic, talk about being slow to speak.

It is because of this anticipated position of yours that I posted the specific verses from Numbers 6 as well as the dictionary reference to tirosh.

There's nothing  to anticipate, i already mentioned it before speaking with you on this thread. It's after i mentioned it in post 17 that you quoted those passages in post 18. It's not funny but am i safe to ask if you've been drinking?

Here is another question for you? Why were Nazarites expressly forbidden from eating anything pertaining to grapes during the period of their separation? How does this compare to Jesus words in Matthew 26 & Luke 22. What does that tell you about the prophetic significance of the Nazarites and Jesus Christ as the firstfruits from the dead? You do not see how interconnected and linked is all the scriptures. There is no command or word that is out of place or without a purpose. Their testimony is of Jesus.

Are we in Bible class? my answer may not be what you've deduced btw but lemme give a fast-try. The nazarites were not allowed to take the grapes because they were separated at that time/period and were under a vow. The grape and its derivatives is symbolic of merriment, while the vow needed sobriety and consecration. I don't know how it compares to Jesus' words but Jesus was not a nazarite anyway in case that's what you're connecting. So kindly give us exposition on the remaining, we are willing to learn.

Furthermore, your evasion of 1 Tim 3:8 and non-answer of 1 Tim 5:23 is noted.

i thought i mentioned that you may need to go learn what wine connotes, that's my answer to you on that. On 5v23, here it is
1Timothy 5:23  Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities.
Was Paul saying Timothy should no longer drink water? Or do we cut out the bolded? Can you explain that, your amswer may just lie in that explanation.

So drunken means to be full/satisfied? What do you make of this verse then? Eph 5:18 And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit; Do people get drunk on food? For your edification: here is what drunken means:
Quote from: Noah Webster's 1828 dictionary
1. Intoxicated; inebriated with strong liquor.
2. Given to drunkenness; as a drunken butler.
3. Saturated with liquor or moisture; drenched.
4. Proceeding from intoxication; done in a state of drunkenness

In the context of that verse, yes it means to be full/satisfied. Let's swap positions a little, you quoted Acts 2:13  Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.
and you said or exchanged 'full' in this verse for 'drunk' in post 19. i did a similar thing and exchanged 'drunken' for 'full' in 1Corinth 11 and it makes me the egregious liar that needs edification? You either see the context or you don't, where do you stand? The context is "For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. You quoted Revelation 17v6 and you're asking if people get drunk on food. i should also be asking for good measure, do people get drunk on blood?

Does any of these suggest aught but intoxication? Not even the other 2 occurrences in John 2:10 and Rev 17:2 do; so whence cometh your intepretation of the word drunken?

Like i hope i just showed you, to be drunk/drunken is to be intoxicated, but as should now be obvious, it doesn't legalistically have to be an intoxication with ALCOHOL, it could be power or joy or something else like the above.

Furthermore in trying to prop up your erroneous exegesis of 1 Cor 11:21; you attempted to smuggle in a false dichotomy between new wine and old wine with regards to their intoxicant properties. A position that Acts 2 destroys hence your redoubt to "fruit of the vine".

This is all grammar. What is the difference between old wine and new wine?

Who called you a Pharisee or foolish? I made a remark concerning the Pharisees' twisting of scriptures and how Jesus rebuked their foolishness. Or are you like the old woman in Chinua Achebe's Things Fall Apart who's always uncomfortable when people around her are talking about dried bones?

So you're saying that i'm not a pharisee and that i'm not foolish?

But this is an emotional argument compounded by tradition. Millions around the world ruin their health every year through eating. Lots of people also take alcohol in moderation. That you have not met any of them is entirely your affair. Why don't you condemn eating as well?

Well it is true life, real life. Do you approve of people ruining their health through eating? For me, i don't approve, i 'condemn' unhealthy eating, and i 'condemn' people taking a bottle of star and claiming Jesus took it and that what He said is MUCH.

There are also good reasons to take some wine as well.

And how many people do it for these 'good reasons'? If you understood my position, of course people should use all things for good reasons, the earth is God's and the fullness of it. But don't come here bullying us with statements like frosbel's Of course Jesus wine was fermented or Timothy took wine let's pop the stout and quit legalism.

What you don't realize was that wine was an integral part of the meal in Jesus' time and is so in some parts of the world even now.

Please, try to stay in context of what i have said, not what i haven't.
This post is also foe Enigma btw.

@Image123

When would you stop forcing your silly opinions into scriptures Anyway I don't have time for this baseless argument, I am off to drink beer with my tithe money as the scriptures commanded below;
25 Sell your produce[tithe] and take the money with you to the one place of worship. 26 Spend it on whatever you want beef, lamb, wine, beer and there in the presence of the lord your God, you and your family are to eat and enjoy yourselves. [Goodnews bible]

@Image123:
By and by the truth reveals itself.

Image123:

What i mean here is that almost/(basically, majorly) everything liquid aside water is translated as wine in the kjv Bible.

^
This is a barefaced lie. Only those ignorant of the Bible will be taken in by this. I can see you are no different from he-who-shall-not-be-named in how you loosely handle the bible.

Image123:

Maybe its a lack of vocabulary or words, by the writers, to demarcate the different drinks but i hardly find the words like beer or juice or malt or soft drink or mineral etc in the kjv. I believe they had fruit juice and drank fruit juice in those days, and its not hard for me to figure that they would also group it as 'wine'.

^
Quite disingenuous but transparently silly.
1) You expect to find malt, soft drink etc in the Bible right? Because Coca-Cola established a bottling plant in Moses' time? I have told you to take James' advice; obviously you rush to reply without thinking!
2) In the Numbers 6 verses pertaining to the Nazarites you will find different distinctions of alcoholic beverages.
3) You need to obviously do more bible study because you do not understand that that which you call beer in English is referred to in the Bible as strong drink.

The word itself is שׁכר
shêkâr shay-kawr'
Total KJV Occurrences: 23
• drink, 21
Lev 10:9; Num 6:3(2); Deut 14:26; Deut 29:6; Judg 13:4; Judg 13:7; Judg 13:14; 1Sam 1:15; Prov 20:1; Prov 31:4; Prov 31:6; Isa 5:11; Isa 5:22; Isa 24:9; Isa 28:7(3); Isa 29:9; Isa 56:12; Mic 2:11

Note that in all these references above there is a distinction between strong drink and wine so your argument about advanced taxonomy falls flat on its face. Wine has always referred to alcoholic beverages produced from grapes.

Only once, I repeat once is shêkâr translated as wine in Numbers 28:7. It would also interest you to note that:
The word  שׁכר (shêkâr) would seem to mean "drink not made from grapes." Of such only pomegranate wine is named in the Bible (Song of Solomon 8:2), but a variety of such preparations (made from apples, quinces, dates, barley, etc.) were known to the ancients and must have been used in Palestine also.

Image123:

It seems you're arguing with the wrong person here. i just re-checked again to be double sure. i mentioned the fruit of the vine ever before i mentioned 'alcohol' or 'new wine'. It's in my second post on this thread where i said " it's not esoteric knowledge that the wine used for communion was the fruit of the vine". i'm yet to say that new wine is non-alcoholic, talk about being slow to speak.
There's nothing  to anticipate, i already mentioned it before speaking with you on this thread. It's after i mentioned it in post 17 that you quoted those passages in post 18. It's not funny but am i safe to ask if you've been drinking?

How sad when pride gets in the way. Here is your first post:

Image123:

Bla bla frosbel, bla bla. You're guilty of what you accused the other of. 'of course it should be fermented wine ko', of course it should be frosbel ni.

^At this point, you hadn't fully revealed your hand but your sarcastic words 'of course it should be fermented wine ko' clearly showed that you aligned with gsuccess false dichotomy of alcoholic versus non-alcoholic wine:

The question is this, which type of wine? strong intoxicating wine or non alcoholic wine (vine-as he drank with His apostles)? Offcourse, that was non alcoholic wine!!

You may not have directly said "that new wine is non-alcoholic" but your words strongly implied it!
Here is your second post:

Image123:

The context of that passage is talking about being full with food(solid or liquid) and otherwise. Anyways, it's not esoteric knowledge that the wine used for communion was the fruit of the vine.
And it's safe to imply that responsible Jews settled for new wine ahead of old wine. It doesn't take a B.Sc before one knows that new wine is new/fresh, while old wine is the fermented one. You'd unfortunately be deceiving yourself to use the communion incidences as an excuse to take gulder and star and co.

^
1) Of course, it has already been shown that you are twisting the scriptures when you say that the word drunken in 1 Corinthians 11 refers to being replete with food. Virtually all translations of μεθύω methuo means to drink to intoxication, i.e. get drunk not eat to the point of being full as you disingenuously put it.
2) Your words "It doesn't take a B.Sc before one knows that new wine is new/fresh, while old wine is the fermented one," clearly reveal your mindset: as far as you are concerned the new (unfermented) wine is non-alcoholic while it is the old fermented one that is. In a further bid to misdirect you say "the wine used for communion was the fruit of the vine," as if there is any wine that is not fruit of the vine. It is exactly on such false interpretations and interpolations that the WoF movement thrives.

Image123:

Are we in Bible class? my answer may not be what you've deduced btw but lemme give a fast-try. The nazarites were not allowed to take the grapes because they were separated at that time/period and were under a vow. The grape and its derivatives is symbolic of merriment, while the vow needed sobriety and consecration. I don't know how it compares to Jesus' words but Jesus was not a nazarite anyway in case that's what you're connecting. So kindly give us exposition on the remaining, we are willing to learn.

^The question I asked was this: What is the prophetic significance of the Nazarites? In what way do the Nazarites point to Jesus? Jesus is the key to unlocking the scriptures. What distinguished the Nazarites from the rest of Israel? What did their name mean? How does Numbers 6:20 compare to Jesus' words. What is Jesus' physical relationship to his people at this time? Jesus drank wine and certainly took grape products while on earth? What does he now have in common with the Nazarites?

Image123:

i thought i mentioned that you may need to go learn what wine connotes, that's my answer to you on that.

^
Repeating a lie over and over does not make it true. You lot are confused by modern marketing strategies that package and present "non-alcoholic wine". You assume that as it is for you so it was then. In Jesus' time, wine was simply the beverage produced from grapes (fruit of the vine). No doubt you have heard of wine presses. What did you think they were for? Here is a description:

Wine Presses:

Many of the ancient wine presses remain to the present day. Ordinarily they consisted of two rectangular or circular excavations, hewn (Isaiah 5:2) in the solid rock to a depth of 2 or 3 feet. Where possible one was always higher than the other and they were connected by a pipe or channel. Their size, of course, varied greatly, but the upper vat was always wider and shallower than the lower and was the press proper, into which the grapes were thrown, to be crushed by the feet of the treaders (Isaiah 63:1-3, etc.). The juice flowed down through the pipe into the lower vat, from which it was removed into jars (Haggai 2:16) or where it was allowed to remain during the first fermentation.

Image123:

On 5v23, here it is
1Timothy 5:23  Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities.
Was Paul saying Timothy should no longer drink water?

^
Stop chasing shadows! Who here is arguing that Paul said Timothy should stop taking water? The passage is clear, Paul was asking him to add a little wine to his diet!

Image123:

In the context of that verse, yes it means to be full/satisfied.

^
No it doesn't.

Image123:

Let's swap positions a little, you quoted Acts 2:13  Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.
and you said or exchanged 'full' in this verse for 'drunk' in post 19. i did a similar thing and exchanged 'drunken' for 'full' in 1Corinth 11 and it makes me the egregious liar that needs edification? You either see the context or you don't, where do you stand? The context is "For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.

^
*sigh* You not a child. Stop responding like one. I guess your bible stops at Acts 2:13 right? Here is Peter's response:
Acts 2:14-15 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words: For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.

Peter's response in more modern terms is simply this: We are not drunk because it's still too early in the day. In all my years; you are the first person I am meeting who is telling me that the common usage of "drunken" means to be filled with food. All usages of that term both metaphorically and literally are based on its allusion to the state of intoxication. So according to you people get inebriated or intoxicated by food? Stop this silliness right now!

Image123:

You quoted Revelation 17v6 and you're asking if people get drunk on food. i should also be asking for good measure, do people get drunk on blood?

^
Don't be a fool! Is that verse describing a human?

Image123:

Like i hope i just showed you, to be drunk/drunken is to be intoxicated, but as should now be obvious, it doesn't legalistically have to be an intoxication with ALCOHOL, it could be power or joy or something else like the above.

^
Do you get intoxicated by food or water? Are we to now add English to the list of things that you should learn? Don't you understand the use of metaphor and simile? Doesn't the word intoxicate that you use suggest something to you? Or are you so far gone in your legalistic traditions that you cannot know rightly handle the Word?

Image123:

This is all grammar. What is the difference between old wine and new wine?

^
You can get drunk on both old and new wine. Only difference is that the new wine is of higher quality hence the remark of the governor of feast in John 2:10.

Image123:

So you're saying that i'm not a pharisee and that i'm not foolish?

^
I didn't say so in my earlier post but based on this last post of yours; I may be forced to reconsider my position.

Image123:

Well it is true life, real life. Do you approve of people ruining their health through eating? For me, i don't approve, i 'condemn' unhealthy eating, and i 'condemn' people taking a bottle of star and claiming Jesus took it and that what He said is MUCH.
And how many people do it for these 'good reasons'? If you understood my position, of course people should use all things for good reasons, the earth is God's and the fullness of it. But don't come here bullying us with statements like frosbel's Of course Jesus wine was fermented or Timothy took wine let's pop the stout and quit legalism.

^
The reason such statements arise is because you lot falsely and foolishly use the Bible to condemn all drinking of alcohol. Like I said there are good and "Christian" reasons for abstaining from alcohol. Those of you who try to forbid what is not forbidden by God end up looking foolish when the people you are trying to convince not to drink use the same bible to punch holes in your arguments. And of course Jesus took wine in contrast to John the Baptist. That is a fact that you cannot argue away! Your distinctions as to new/old; fermented or not fermented; fruit of the vine or not etc are specious man-made legalisms.

Image123:

Please, try to stay in context of what i have said, not what i haven't.
This post is also foe Enigma btw.

^
A lot of what you have said on this thread is a farrago of faulty exegesis and misapprehensions of bible history that must not be allowed to stand.

Proverbs 20:1 - 'Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise'. I am sure you do not want 'to drink of the wine of the wrath(anger) of the Lord in Hell fire. Before I repented and surrendered my life to Christ, I was into alcoholism, but immediately I had a genuine repentance and salvation from sins, I needed nobody to teach me to stop it.

Abstain from all appearance of evil.

I'm, not surprised at your points, but the summary of my response is found in 1 Corinthians 2:14 ('But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned') and in 2 Corinthians 4:3,4 ('But if our gospel be hid,it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them'). I equally argued like you are doing till I repented and gave my life to Christ, then I began to understand the scriptures by the Spirit of God. The Pharisees & Sadducees also argued the Words of Christ because they want to be justified in their sin.


The Solution is repentance and salvation.

A SINNER IS NOT A CHRISTIAN (1 JOHN 3: 9,8a)

BY THE WAY, THE LORD'S CHOSEN CHARISMATIC REVIVAL MINISTRIES WILL BE HAVING AN INTERNATIONAL CRUSADE IN ABUJA, at Eagle square next month, July 23-24. Every sinful harbit and yokes of bondage will break by the annointing. PASTOR LAZARUS MUOKA WILL BE MINISTERING.

I PRAY YOU MAKE HEAVEN AT LAST

In I Corinthians 6:9,10 the Bible says,'Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind(i.e Homosexuals, Lesbians), nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. Further in 1Peter 1:15,16-'But as He which has called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation (or conduct), because it is written be ye holy; for I am holy.

The worst that can happen to someone is self deception. That is why the scripture stated above that you should not deceive yourself. The grace of God is freely available to a christian to live a holy life, if he first believes in the word of the Lord and pray. If you feel you cannot be holy, so will it be to you. But if you will believe that Holiness is possible, and study scriptures prayerfully and ask for more grace, and cut off from all appearance of evil, consecrating your life to the Lord. Love teachings and teachers that emphasize holiness of life, depending on the grace of God, you will be made and kept righteous by the Lord.

Do not be deceived by compromising preachers who do not believe in holiness of life because without holiness no one can see the Lord (Hebrews 12:14). All you need to do is to pray for the grace.