₦airaland Forum

i don't wish to prolong on this, but i still feel there some one/two things to add. Because most of the posters here(at least say pages 2&3) are fopular, well regarded 'CHRISTIANS' in the religion section of this forum. As such we should have some factuality to what we're saying. Like i'll rather've waived some flaws but because it's YOU, i'm saying. You should know that yeast is the principal in fermentation or alcohol making. Two, no bottle(new or old) can withstand the 'energies' of fermentation. Three, fresh(est) palmwine(i wondered why palmwine came up) is non-alcoholic and can be preserved.
i won't argue on any of the above. Whatever you choose to believe on it, that's not what i was here to defend. Just thought to inform you on them.

Thought i said you guys should go and research on this or something. Anyway, i get too much strength to argue unfortunately, but i wouldn't. Just please God abeg
@nuclear-i was kidding with the two 'parties' on that 'pest post'. Pls, don't mind me o

Seun:
Do you mean two different greek/hebrew words? Or a greek/hebrew word with two meanings?

One word in the english with two meanings. Like i stated, the context and the Spirit are so important.

yadayada mis-cues

The word 'judge' is blind in meaning to many both believers and unbelievers. It's actually two different words rendered as one 'judge'. The words are 'condemn' and 'discern'. So you need to note the context and of course the Spirit when reading. i hope to speak more on AIO's "judge not" thread.

@all
i'm thinking Jo meant to say that the thread was "to be continued by my pests".

Comedy

Enigma:
As a demonstration of the fallacy of the semantic exercise, consider the following Yoruba word/sentence:

1 O ti yo  = S/he is full (of food; i.e. e don chop belle full)

2 O ti yo = S/he is drunk (i.e. e don drink alcohol tey e don shayo)

Context shows that the word in 1Cor 11 meant drunk (of alcoholic wine which is why various Bible versions translate it so.

Enigma, i'll tell you what context shows. Context shows that 'o tun gege seyin'.
But on a more serious note, can we say that the corinthian believers had homes to eat and be drunk in?

Chai
See live perishing for lack of knowledge.

JeSoul:
^Image, snr brother, mehn, na you sabi oh.

As of this morning I checked my wine rack to see if it needed re-stocking . . . I'm still good for at least another 4 days

I re-quote the verse you used to end your last post: "For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost."

If wine does not work for you and you choose - out of faith - to abstain from it, then blessings be upon you. We must not look down upon those whose faith allows them to partake of it. I personally do not think that 'wine' in the scripture is a general term for drinks but hey . . . your believing so is by no means a disqualifier - as long as no one is trying to impose their own personal belief/interpretation as law or truth for the entire body. Cheers! *pun intended*  

My sister, ow're you doing now? me agree with you ga'an.

@InesQor

Some points for all to consider:

1. There was never any Jewish instruction or injunction, religious or otherwise (for commoners) against taking alcohol.

Believers are not commoners, they are kings and priests. It's not coincidence that kings were told not to take wine(alcoholic from the context)
Proverbs 31:4  It is not for kings, O Lemuel, it is not for kings to drink wine; nor for princes strong drink:
A similar injunction went also to the priests.
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 forever throughout your generations:
Lev 10:10  And that ye may put difference between holy and unholy, and between unclean and clean;
You may notice that the priests' was scheduled unlike the kings' which was for all time. the priests had a rotated order of ministering. All those on duty had to obey this. If we're to draw anything from here for present day believers, our lives are not in shifts like the priests. We are a living all time reasonable sacrifice. We are always ministering with our high priests. And another thing is that we are the tabernacle of the Holy Ghost, always. The implications of that are best revealed by God Himself.

2. In fact it was advised to take alcohol, for both adults and children, because:
   (a) It was generally unsafe to take water, which was often full of germs unless from a fountain or artesian spring.
   (b) Fruit juice was even more dangerous than water, because in the HOT sun, it will get infested with bacteria very very fast and will get bad. Fruit juice needs refrigeration (not yet invented) or a glacé (coating the extracts in piles of sugar. Only the very rich can afford this). As such, commoners won't take fruit juice. Take note of this, Image123.

i guess you mean wine here at the bolded. Generally unsafe to take water? where is that one/place? And fruit juice is more dangerous? commonnn. Everybody has been taking fruits from Adam. The juice, the liquid of the fruit is the fruit juice i refer to, not the processed 'chi's that we call fruit juice today. Any Jew, even the poor could go into any field and pluck fruits, it was not an exclusive of the rich. Fresh fruit juice need no refrigeration, and i think it's even healthier than the old one. Commoners won't take fruitjuice?commonn are you kidding? i'm not talking of 5alive and all these stuff at the malls and supermarket, i'm talking of collecting grapes, or figs or oranges mango whatever fruit, and taking the juice from it.

(c) Fermented wine will keep inside wine jars for weeks, months, years without causing any harm when you drink of it. In fact, the fermented wine was often terribly concentrated, and would often be diluted enough with water so that the alcohol's antibacterial effect will cleanse the water, and the water will dilute the alcohol and reduce its intoxicating effect. A mixture of alcohol and water will always save the day.

Good research work here. Atleast, i didn't have to say it first that fermented wine had to be heavily diluted before the people took it. Unfermented wine was also preserved to an extent. You may research on that as well. i think it was alluded to when Jesus talked about new wine in new bottles.
Luke 5:38  But new wine must be put into new bottles; and both are preserved.
The idea is that if you put new wine in old bottles, the old bottle would contain yeast that would startup/accelerate fermentation. The gas and other effects would damage the bottle and waste the wine. But with new wine in new bottles, both were PRESERVED. Like i said, please research on preservation of new wine.

3. In light of this, Jesus drank alcohol. Strong alcohol. Not fruit juice. And he didn't get drunk. The worst that was said of him on the matter is that he kept company with drunkards. i.e. with those who drink and drink to excess (maybe undiluted? Or maybe they drank until they began to misbehave?).

Thank God your case is different from those who said 'in the light of scriptures, Jesus drank alcohol. So you're still myfriendye    
That's where my 'fight' is. The scriptures tell us that Jesus drank wine, and it's specific to say good wine, or new wine the fruit of the vine.
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[b] new[/b] with you in my Father's kingdom.

During the Pentecost, Peter did not reply "Of course we are not drinking wine! We don't do it!! It is bad!!!  " but rather "It's too early to be drinking wine, we are not drunk" which means they DID drink wine.

i addressedthis earlier. here's what i said
Acts 2:13 Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.
The passage is actually a strong point to prove that the early disciples abstained from alcohol. They were being MOCKED, not 'directly accused'. The ridicule/mockery is in the 'new wine', not in being full/drunk. A paraphrase of what they were saying is like 'this disciples of Jesus are just impossible, they're separate and sober unlike others, and still manage to get drunk on new wine". It's like saying someone is drunk after taking his LaCasera, that's mockery (it's not a proof that the drink is alcoholic, but an attempt to ridicule the person maybe for his abstemious lifestyle). What would you have answered if you were Peter? We're not drunk because we don't drink? While that might have been huge for our argument, it'll hold little water to the crowd. They probably knew by the way that they did not drink alcohol, they were mocking them. Peter by the Spirit went for reason/common sense. He said it's just 9am, people don't get drunk by 9am. 1Thessalonians 5:7 For they that sleep sleep in the night; and they that be drunken are drunken in the night.

By the way, the yearly passover feast occurred 6-7 months after the grape harvest. Can someone tell me how it is preserved?  How much sugar will that take to be kept from fermenting? Come on! They drank jolly good fermented wine. Amen.

i think it's by boiling or something of that nature. i read it a while then. pls, research it for yourself. I'd see if i made notes on it and come back on that though. By the very way, the Jews could not take anything that was fermented/yeasted during passover remember?

Exo 12:19  Seven days shall there be no leaven found in your houses: for whosoever eateth that which is leavened, even that soul shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether he be a stranger, or born in the land.
Exo 12:20  Ye shall eat nothing leavened; in all your habitations shall ye eat unleavened bread.

P.S. For personal reasons, I was not taking any alcohol until 2 months ago. From then till now all I take is Smirnoff Ice   A can at a time, once in a while. But I honestly think nothing is wrong with taking alcohol (no matter the quantity) if you don't lose your sense of judgment and you don't damage your liver in the process.

i'll repeat it though, that i've yet to personally meet anyone who drinks alcohol and has never been drunk. Plus, Noah and Lot were the most righteous men in their world and community, they were mocked by wine. Don't wait to be deceived thereby.

Can someone please tell me how non-alcoholic wine was made and used in any communion? How is it produced? How is it stored?

Jesus' communion with His disciples was of grape juice.

Mat 26:27  And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
Mat 26:28  For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Mat 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.


Mark 14:23  And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it.
Mark 14:24  And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.
Mark 14:25  Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that[b] I drink it new[/b] in the kingdom of God.


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.
Luke 22:19  And he took bread, and gave thanks, and broke it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
Luke 22:20  Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.
1Corinthians 11:25  After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

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]

Is Kunle actually taking a tenth of his income to go and drink beer or is he lying? Rev 21v8. It may be funny to us, but i don't think God considers it funny. God judges our words and our motives. Is he going to the place of worship to do this with the poor, or it's just in his fridge or at the beer parlor. One last thing that surprises me is that is strong drink rightly translated as beer? i thought so, the surprising thing is that its a beer/alcohol advocate that i heard/read it from that strong drink is not beer. i'm still 'researching' on that though. Whatever your decisions sha do all things to the glory of God, and do well to read, meditate on and obey Romans 14. God's bless you with grace.

@aletheia

I am going to use strong language for you. . .because you boldly and barefacedly persist in your lies. You are a false teacher who is too lazy to even check the bible verses you claim that support your lies and who tries to change the meanings of words.

Too bad for you then. It's perhaps you've changed  great deal or i probably misjudged you. you'll need to calm down and watch your pride and stand in Christ. You've already called me silly, a fool, pharisee and false. i don't see the need to ask for 'permission' now na. Do you even realise that as a christian, you've committed sin? Over what by the way?

This is what Numbers 6:2 says:
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.

i believe you refer to verse3 which you quoted and not verse 2. Anyways, how does verse 3 differ from what i said? You were the one who said "2) In the Numbers 6 verses pertaining to the Nazarites you will find different distinctions of alcoholic beverages.". i think that's a simplistic generalisation. the bolded part of the text talks of the grape fruit itself (which is not an alcoholic beverage). i said
"The Numbers 6 in my Bible give different things a nazarite was to separate from(i.e everything related to grape), not a distinction of alcoholic beverages. The nazarite was not to take even the grape fruit. All the others mentioned in that verse were derived/produced from the grape. Is this the HUGE error or one of it that makes me a false teacher who is lazy. i wonder then what you'd call people who do not believe God exists or do not believe Jesus came in the flesh, or do not believe the authority of the Scriptures, or who have some heretic teaching about the gospel or angels or of holiness. Sadly enough, it won't be surprising that you find them gentlemen and friends because you have the same views on some irrelevant issues like say politics or romance or you think they are sincere. You respect atheists and people who see nothing wrong with immorality, beastiality, lying and homosexuality but you call me names because of what? Whether Jesus drank alcohol or didn't drink? i'll be doing you a disfavour if i don't tell you that you have issues with God.

Does intoxicate mean to fill or soak? Your lies mount up.

i see you've skipped a lot of what i said. It may help context if you quote them and perhaps reply them instead of picking and choosing my words.
We're not in an english class. But i already mentioned that 'intoxicate' is often linked to alcohol, but that it doesn't mean that it always should be alcohol. One can be intoxicated with power, or with joy, or with love, or even with music. The synonyms for 'intoxicate' are  'inebriate'(which is the popular alcohol one), 'elate', 'soaked', 'drunk', even 'happy'. If you don't know, go and learn instead of talking about lie lie lie. It's in the Bible and i think i pointed to you occurences of being drunk/intoxicated/filled with wine or blood or food or fury.

Please do lay out for us to see the passages that forbid drinking wine. Note I do not ask for passages that condemn drunkenness (because those are the ones that you will produce). If you cannot produce just one bible verse that forbids drinking of wine (even in Num 6:20 the Nazarites were permitted to drink wine); then it is proven that you are a lying false teacher!

Like i've earlier noted, wine in the kjv english translation refers to almost every liquid drink. Those of you who study the greek and hebrew may be able to differentiate, plus it also depends on the context. i.e while new wine was unfermented/non alcoholic, old wine was fermented/alcoholic. the passage might just say wine, but the context tells you that it was the new or the old. New wine was a staple food in Israel i.e it wasn't frowned at. it's the fermented that waas frowned at.
Proverbs 31:4  It is not for kings, O Lemuel, it is not for kings to drink wine; nor for princes strong drink:
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 forever throughout your generations:
Lev 10:10  And that ye may put difference between holy and unholy, and between unclean and clean;
Titus 1:7  For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not self-willed, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;
Those are 3 passages that forbid wine even without drunken considerations as you requested. Meanwhile there are numerous passages that SPEAK AGAINST WINE. Those were the two things i said. there are passages where God forbade wine, and the whole scripture speak against not for it(before you count one or two passages that seem to speak positive about wine, i'm easily counting more that speak against it). When one looks at the whole scriptures, the advice(which you called 'the christian reason) one gets is against, not for wine.

You are no Apostle. Was God promoting an appearance of evil when he commanded:
Deut 14:26 And thou shalt bestow that money for whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatsoever thy soul desireth: and thou shalt eat there before the LORD thy God, and thou shalt rejoice, thou, and thine household,
Or when Jesus changed water into wine?

The question was "Is DRINKING alcohol for pleasure an appearance of evil?" i noticed you've not been answering my numerous questions.
Well, Deuteronomy 14v26 has its caveat for the Israelites. They knew they were to use that tenth to buy what was within their law and enjoy it. They couldn't buy unclean animals or get drunk with their household. It was a purposed feast in Jerusalem, not an appearance of evil like Kunle saying he's going off to drink beer. And Jesus did not turn water into alcohol, He turned water to wine. The Bible records that it was good wine, not the worse one. the new wine was the good wine which everyone could take. It was not alcoholic like i earlier said.

How silly you are, grasping at straws and propping up straw men. Who here says Jesus was an alcoholic? In all ages people have always drunk alcohol. Did Noah need any doctrine to get drunk? Sinful men will find occasion for sin and it is the power of Christ that gives the victory not your silly and unbiblical injunctions.

You said "Jesus took wine in contrast to John the Baptist. That is a fact that you cannot argue away! " i don't think i argued about that. i'm just making the distinction clear that John had a vow on anything wine, Jesus did not have such vow. Jesus took new wine, of the fruit of the vine. John didn't. You're making a general and wrong conclusion that Jesus took all kinds of wine(because you believe all wines are alcoholic). Jesus did not take fermented/old wine. Its not in the scriptures. What He took was grape juice, which was also called new wine. It's a world away from what we compare today, our champagne, ale and lager beer. That's where my grouse lies, and has lain all the while. You say Jesus took alcohol, the apostles took alcohol, but for christian reasons don't take alcohol. that's strange and funny to me. My point is not take alcohol or don't take. My point is Jesus did not take alcohol, the apostles didn't. It's not in the scriptures at least.
You think, or at least act like the kingdom of God is meat and drink. That's why you act like i'm not a part of the kingdom because i say Jesus didn't take fermented wine, or something on that line. i'd advice, even instruct from the Word of God that one should abstain from ALCOHOL DRINKING. i'll stand by the truth of what the Bible says and DOES NOT say. But that(what you eat or drink or do not eat or drink)'s not my basis for fellowship or for discernment.
Romans 14:17  For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.
inesQor i dey come ooo.

What's the agitation about? And, so you're among the wonderers, keep wondering, you're on the net.

My 10 most influencing men in church history would include
Peter, Paul, John, Nero, Martin Luther, Steven Langton, John Wesley, Mary Jesus' mother, Kenneth Hagin and Billy Graham.
P S: I'm not praising or condemning anyone of them, just saying they've influenced the global course of christianity in their time and perhaps forever. Of course there may/should be others not too popular faithful God-loved men and women.

@aletheia

^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?

thought i asked that you kindly give us exposition on the remaining, we are willing to learn.

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:

So you've not learnt what wine connotes? like i said earlier sha, not all wines in Bible days were alcoholic, go and learn too.
From your little talk on wine presses though: 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. That point is what you may call new wine. Notice the ' allowed to remain DURING the first fermentation' part. THERE IS UNFERMENTED GRAPE JUICE.

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!

Actually, i'm asking a question, pls answer.  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?

No it doesn't.

It means full/satiated, not intoxicated with alcohol. It's the same greek word 'methoo/methuo' that is used in John 2v10 and in greek translations of the old testament in passages like Psalm 65v10 and Psalm 23v5. All these passages mean satisfaction/being full, not intoxication with alcohol. That's the true sense in which the word is used.

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.

Your guess is wrong, my Bible stops at Revelation 22. It shows though that you do not understand the passage.

Acts 2:13 Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.
The passage is actually a strong point to prove that the early disciples abstained from alcohol. They were being MOCKED, not 'directly accused'. The ridicule is in the 'new wine', not in being full/drunk. A paraphrase of what they were saying is like 'this disciples of Jesus are just impossible, they're separate and sober unlike others, and still manage to get drunk on new wine". It's like saying someone is drunk after taking his LaCasera, that's mockery (it's not a proof that the drink is alcoholic, but an attempt to ridicule the person maybe for his abstemious lifestyle).

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!

i hope 'all your years' haven't hindered your capability to learn. What would you have answered if you were Peter? We're not drunk because we don't drink? While that might have been huge for our argument, it'll hold little water to the crowd. they probably knew by the way that they did not drink alcohol, they were mocking them. Peter by the Spirit went for reason/common sense. he said it's just 9am, people don't get drunk by 9am. I didn't mention stuff about common usage, i thought i said in that passage's context/sense, According to me, people get filled/surfeited/satiated/satisfied by food, not inebriated. Are you deliberately misunderstanding me?

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

You tell me o rabbi, the wise one.
Revelation 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.

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?

to intoxicate is to fill or soak. That it's often linked to alcohol doesn't mean that it always should be alcohol as is clear. In this case, you can be full with food or water.

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.

Wrong. New wine is of higher quality as in higher quality in what? Obviously, i expect you to say taste or something on that line. Now, if you understand fermentation(or at least the basics), you'll know that it's the sugar that is turned to alcohol in the fermenting. That means that a drink has less sugar and more alcohol as it ferments i.e it loses the good taste as it ferments due to the loss of sugar. It means that the old wine contains a higher percentage of alcohol than the new wine, there's the difference. Old wine is alcoholic due to natural fermentation and often induced yeast fermentation. new wine is NON- alcoholic or at most negligible alcoholic if not well prepared.

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.

Talk about by and by 'truths'. you're going to call me a fool and a pharisee plus the others you already called me because we do not agree on new wine old wine. Speaks of how you're standing currently in Christ. You need a re-examining, plus you want to watch that pride.

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.

Who says its not forbidden by God, are you aware of the passages that speak against wine or do i begin to lay them out. What does it mean to abstain from all appearance of evil? Is DRINKING alcohol for pleasure an appearance of evil? What is an example of an appearance of evil? Answers? you think all the audience of the apostles thought highly of them, or all felt they were wise?

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.

John was on a vow from birth. It's not an indictment on Jesus as an alcoholic. Jesus did not take fermented/old wine. Its not in the scriptures. What He took was grape juice, which was also called new wine. It's a world away from what we compare today, our champagne, ale and lager beer. You and your kind of doctrine are influencing the drinking habit of millions of people around the world, and it's on the negative. People are picking up their vintages and 10-20%s, their gins and spirits, and destroying themselves and their families. i'm also on the look out for those people who drink and don't get drunk.

@quick things from your post to gsuccess. So because he doesn't agree with you, are you now saying that anointing does not break the yoke or what?
no 2. Are you really talking about Deuteronomy 14? as in the same Deuteronomy 14? i thought all these things were unprofitable and a scam and weak and what not that kunle and the gangue talk about? As in, whats happening?

@aletheia

By and by the truth reveals itself.

What is truth?

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.

There you go with the accusations. Calling it a lie doesn't mean anything except you have something tangibly to the contrary. I'll say it again "almost/(basically, majorly) everything liquid aside water is translated as wine in the kjv Bible." i just showed you that even the juice in the fruit was called wine. Do you really have to insert Joagbaje in each conversation?

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!

silly and without thinking, i don try sha only me. i don't recall mentioning Coca-Cola. i do know that they had malt and soft drinks in Bible days, and that there are different hebrew and greek words all translated 'wine' in the kjv Bible. These are the things i stated, i didn't mention my expectations.

2) In the Numbers 6 verses pertaining to the Nazarites you will find different distinctions of alcoholic beverages.

The Numbers 6 in my Bible give different things a nazarite was to separate from(i.e everything related to grape), not a distinction 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.

O you're about to graduate or have graduated Bible study i guess. i said and you quoted that i hardly find the WORDS like beer or juice or malt or soft drink or mineral etc in the kjv. Have you found those words? Now that you say beer is strong drink, would it be reasonable to imply that strong drink was of more alcoholic content than the 'wine' at its side? It's a question. In the references you gave,yes 'distinction'(if that's the appropriate word to give it) is made between 'wine' and 'strong drink' but in most of the other about 200 references including Numbers 28v7, that 'distinction' is conspicuously missing. And we do have advanced taxonomy today.
Wine does not always refer to alcoholic beverages produced from grapes. You said this before and i let it skip. Not all wine is alcoholic, bite your tongue in disgust. then there's wine produced from other material like barley wine, or apple wine or fruit wine, not only grape.

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.

i just said this, thank God we may not have to argue on this one.

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

What it clearly showed was what i said, that frosbel was guilty of what he/she accused the other of. Here it is from the post i speak "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 was pointing out to frosbel who has gone AWOL since then that he was equally at fault on the same charge.

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

And i know that i said that you were misimplying me on several grounds. i'm as yet to say a yes or no on the issue, at least on this thread if my memory serves me well.

Here is your second post:
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.

Shown by who, you? To who, you? maybe i should also say that its been shown that you're drunk(only that i won't add that it was merely shown to my imaginations?). the context of the sentence is clear to anyone who sincerely observes it. 'drunken' is contrasted with 'hungry' in that sentence (For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.) It should be understood as full/surfeited, not narrowed to drunken/intoxicated with alcohol. The context is that the overfilled is being compared to the underfilled, that's what Paul was rebuking in the passage. And he further restated that they had houses to eat and drink, he was not saying they should go get drunk at home instead of church but that they should share in church/communion.
1Co 11:20  When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.
1Co 11:21  For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.
1Co 11:22  What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.

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.

You just quoted the bolded's contrary, there are some wine that is not the fruit of the vine. And the scripture says the communion was the fruit of the vine, there's nothing misdirecting there. It also specifies that it is NEW, just seems like He expected peeps like you to come say it was fermented fruit of the vine.
Ok ok, the million billion dollar answer being awaited. New wine was non alcoholic, or negligible alcoholic, like some drugs have alcohol. Grape juice is new wine, i don't think i will call that alcoholic. And of course, like you said, the old fermented wine is alcoholic. Why put the word fermented if its not alcoholic. Ferment is not a play word, it means alcoholic(i guess that's the most important kind of fermentation). i'll be back maybe much later.

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.

^
Dangote isn't the only one producing cement in the country, though his company is a major player. Some other major players are elephant and ashaka(lafarge), unicem, etc

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)

^
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.

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.

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 HYPOCRITES are gathering again. ever learning and never able, too bad.

Quite funny thread. seemed somewhat obvious to me though that olanrewaju's been trying to market his books and co. As it's been quoted from Romans, let each one be persuaded in himself. There's 'power' in everything btw not just names. God can use anything and everything, it's unto you according to your faith.
As a man thinks in his heart so he is. If you think your name would work for you, it may well do. If you think it doesn't matter, it may very well not matter. Satan can take advantage of a slip, but that's due to the individual's ignorance(God's people can perish for ignorance). But once you KNOW, as in KNOW, then you make the needed 'adjustments.
Saul the apostle was nicknamed Paul(meaning small stature/little) but it didn't hinder his 'greatness'. Bill Gates is a 'great' man today. His name is 'Bill' as in nepa bill and 'gate' as in gate. Same with former presidents Bush. Not forgetting 'Kumuyi' which is an idolatrous name but He sees it different.

@Joagbaje
While i reason with your plea, and to an extent understand what you're saying. i wish to restate like some already did that the apostles were not disagreed in doctrine, neither did Paul shield any ministry from Peter or James(still wondering what that means btw).
Also believers can teach one another where there's humility and spiritual growth, instead of the catchy 'leave him to his master'. That's why God gave His church gifts. The example is clear in the case of Apollus with Aquila and his wife.

Any scriptures here?

Funny read?

Brother Frosbel, you don dey holi pass Jesus ke?
Whistling 'amazing grace'

thehomer:
Found it. Please read it in Matthew 16 towards the end of the chapter. You need to realize that its not about me believing but about me pointing out these inconsistencies at the core of Christian dogma.

Eureka! you didn't find it. You don't even understand it. Your answer is right in the next couple of verses the next chapter. i sincerely doubt you'd see it though, so why bother.

thehomer:
I wonder what Jesus himself said about when this event was supposed to occur. I seem to recall something about some of those he was speaking to being alive to witness this event. But as usual, the fact that even Jesus was wrong about such a significant event doesn't seem to faze some people.

False accusation, when did Jesus make such predictions that were wrong? This is btw one of your insincere acts that i complain about. You believe quickly where you think there's a mistake or wrong to nail the christian faith, but to you, it never happened when it talks of great good things.

^
i answered in context. i didn't receive a miracle, like say lightning or thunder, or a strange voice, or some lame or blind person getting healed, or the sea parting before i believed. That's what i mean.
The context where you quoted me is that salvation itself is a miracle. It is a miracle for any one to be saved, it's not brain power or natural. Your salvation itself is the miracle, not some sign you seem to be expecting before you believe. Anyone who's not saved is blind/dead but having ability to believe. It's that belief that leads to your salvation which is the miracle.
On being unserious, you've been v.insincere and Idehn just made it worse. So much 'goal post shifting', i don't have time for such arguement in circles and 'na me post last'. If i see the need to reply you later, i may. But presently, no, sorry.

There'll be no devil in Heaven or temptation to sin. Plus Heaven's future is already written down by the omniscient God.