|
|
Post by falklands on Feb 9, 2006 13:04:58 GMT -5
Well, now I'm not sure which one to argue. All I'm saying is we're not sinless, we're trying to be. Boom, instant purification process. If we could be sinless on our own, then "Christ is dead in vain". Aha! So you think that faith is made living by works? 'Cause that's just what you said there. "Fiducia is more than mental acknowledgment. It involves a trust in something, a giving over to it, a complete believing and acceptance of something. This is the kind of faith that a Christian has in Christ. A Christian, therefore, has fiducia; that is, he has real faith and trust in Christ, not simply an acknowledgment that He lived on earth at one time." So, you said that you have to share your faith (doing works) in order to have living (Fiducia) faith. What? You have to do a few things of the body in order to have a change of heart? I think you've mixed it up. Works are the result of a living faith; a faith that is living is not the result of works. That living faith will inevitably produce works (hence James saying "I show you my faith by my works). Do you honestly think that God will purify you spiritually because someone dunked you into some water while saying a few words over you, without your conscious involvement? Do you really think transformations of the heart are determined by things on the outside? I wonder if it has any significance to the discussion... ;D Oh, and if you reply to this, try and make a response to my last post about faith/works on the last page. |
|
Teckor
Full Member
.........what am I supposed to write? Something inspiring?
Posts: 154
|
Post by Teckor on Feb 9, 2006 16:39:10 GMT -5
Well, verses like 1 Cor. 10:16–17, 11:23–29 and John 6:32–71. Read them over right now, nothing there about "transmutation" of the bread or "wine" into blood or flesh. However, he (Paul) does use it metaphorically to make a point. Even Jesus said "Do this in rememberance of me" (emphasis not in original). Sure, I can see doing it as a ceremony, but there is nothing more to it, it's just bread and "wine". How can we ever truly not sin? We sin practically every second of every day, in some way or another. We can't truly be like Jesus. We should try, but we will never reach it. Yes, "boom, instant purification process", could possibler describe what happens with salvation. Faith is "useless" to the person if he doesn't use it or share it (seeing as that Jesus tells us to "preach the gospel to every creature"). However, you don't need the works, you can still get to Heaven. Even though it's "dead", doesn't mean that you don't have it. Firstly, Jesus did say "broad and wide is the way to destruction, but narrow is the path of life" (?verse?), didn't he? Which indicates that not "everyone" knows it or accepts it. Secondly, many of the disciples died horrible deaths at the hands of the Romans (probably all) before the Roman Catholic Church came into being. Thirdly, God didn't let it get stamped out. It was there, just not very out-spoken. Fourthly, yes, Paul and the other disciples were probably converting alot of people, but did you know that during the Roman persecution, the streets were piled high with the bodies of Christians. It takes alot of people to make piles in streets, and this probably happened daily. But doesn't that make you question their motives? Why wouldn't they say "what your doing is wrong, here is what is right" and place it on a separate day?  Show me the proof of verses that say that salvation can be lost (partially I'm lazy but I'd think that the way you put it they'd be easy to find in the Bible). Yes, good people do bad things, does that mean that they've somehow lost their salvation? Not really seeing as that then Jesus's death wouldn't have removed our sins but merely act as a "patch". They were saved all the time then, not just when they were good, but when they were bad too. As a matter of fact, that's why Jesus died, b/c we are bad, and we can't save ourselves, God had to throw the rope right to us. It's our choice to grab hold and let Him help us. Yes, you have to accept his redemption, but there's nothing more than that. Accepting his personal gift. As before, the Catholic belief system is then imposing the idea that there is some sort of "good/bad balance" that would determine whether or not we get to Heaven. If that was so, we'd all be doomed to Hell. We can't pay the ransom that we owe, God had to do that for us. Romans 6:23, "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Yes, you have to do it "whole-heartedly", but there is no absolute way of not sinning again after you've been saved. You can try, yes, but trying doesn't save you. Nothing you can do (Titus 3:5) can save you. Also, just to note, I don't believe you can "reject God" unless you don't have the gift in the first place. In which case then, your not saved in the first place. |
|
|
|
Post by falklands on Feb 9, 2006 17:21:11 GMT -5
This is my general position for Biblical covenants. They represent things of the heart, but do not take the place of them. Circumcision represents the cutting away of sin from the heart. In the same way, Baptism represents the washing away of sins from the heart. And communion represents the offering of Jesus' body and blood made 2000 years ago. "Do this in remembrance of me."
Both of you, go get reliable early church history sources and then you stop arguing the facts and start debating the implications.
|
|
Teckor
Full Member
.........what am I supposed to write? Something inspiring?
Posts: 154
|
Post by Teckor on Feb 9, 2006 20:04:33 GMT -5
This is my general position for Biblical covenants. They represent things of the heart, but do not take the place of them. Circumcision represents the cutting away of sin from the heart. In the same way, Baptism represents the washing away of sins from the heart. And communion represents the offering of Jesus' body and blood made 2000 years ago. "Do this in remembrance of me." ... who is your response directed to? To me or to the general public? What I'm arguing about is what I've heard, and I've heard that it talks about what happened in the eraly church in the "Foxes Book of Martyrs". Motives should be viewed very critically. Alright then, I looked at some of the verses presented and I really have to ask, how do you know that those verses are refering to people that actually have salvation, and besides, wouldn't that then contradict other verses that support the idea of "unlosable" slavation? Simply pointing out problems. Also, sry about the slight profanity. |
|
|
|
Post by steelsheen on Feb 9, 2006 20:18:49 GMT -5
'reliable historical sources'?
Some books available today regarding this are-
Fox's Book of Martyrs, and Josephus.
Are you arguing that such things as the inqusition happened? Even the catholic church admits they did that!
|
|
|
|
Post by falklands on Feb 9, 2006 22:06:48 GMT -5
... who is your response directed to? To me or to the general public? It was really to heartofgold, seeing as he's the one most likely to disagree... Righto then. It just seemed like you were arguing over what actually happened without reference to any sources, which is something I'd advise against. But as it turns out, you do have a reliable source. Perhaps you though I insinuated that your sources were unreliable, but I didn't actually mean it that way. True, but it seemed like you were viewing the motives very cynically. Good point. Right now I am not extensively researched on this topic, but whatever you say about it, take it to the other thread. |
|
grerry
New Member
Best PS2 player ever
Posts: 40
|
Post by grerry on Feb 10, 2006 12:47:49 GMT -5
My cousins are catholic. If you are going to put catholics down, just remember they are of the same religion as all other christians but, believe differently. As long as anybody accepts Christ they are more than likely to have eternal life.
|
|
|
|
Post by heartofgold on Feb 10, 2006 20:28:47 GMT -5
We can't. You have to do it with God's help.
I think I've realised our problem here. I don't think works lead to living faith, and I don't think living faith leads to works. I think they are one and the same. All James is really saying here is, "don't just believe there's a God that loves you, act like it." So there, he's telling us to have living faith.
It doesn't, but that's my philosophy on life.
[/Quote]Read them over right now, nothing there about "transmutation" of the bread or "wine" into blood or flesh. However, he (Paul) does use it metaphorically to make a point. Even Jesus said "Do this in rememberance of me" (emphasis not in original).
Sure, I can see doing it as a ceremony, but there is nothing more to it, it's just bread and "wine".[/Quote]
But why? Why is this the only part of the bible we're allowed to take figuratively? If its absolutely essential that we have literal translation of the bible, why is this particular passage figurative? Plus, it just seems so clear in John. They all ask the exact same things you are asking and he puts them down. "For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink" just seems really clear to me.
Exactly. So you're not sinless in this life, and you are sinless in heaven. What happens? How do you just, poof, become sinless after death and before heaven? Purgatory.
So they should have called themselves, "the Enlightened Bunch. Not everyone gets in." Don't you want to let everyone who comes into the church? Or should you have little tests to see if their christian or not before you let them in?
I'm saying the Catholic Church has been around since Peter, and there wasn't any other Christian group, so that's what we're debating here.
What evidence is there that he Catholic Church showed up in 400 and just claimed to be the only church? Why did God let his "true" church die out until about 50 years ago after promising to guide it? And yes, it did die out. All of what your saying came around about 50 to 100 years ago. We've had religious freedom for a while, why hadn't we heard it before?
Well first off, like Falklands said, isn't this a little cynical? Second, like I said, Constantine technically did it (not that I'm blaming him). The Catholic Church had been persecuted for a long while, they weren't just going to tell the Romans to buzz off. But still, why is it so terrible to kick out a pagan holiday and put in a Christian one?
Um, I'm not sure where the good/bad balance comes in. But weather or not you can lose your salvation we can talk about in the other thread.
Well, first off, saved is the wrong word. The bible speaks of Salvation in all three tenses, making me think you can lose it. Second, no, trying will not save you without faith. You can't just sit back in your faith and do nothing, that's dead faith. You have to do something.
For instance, do you have to love in order to be saved? I'd say yes, but doesn't that make it a work?
Well, then you might not be saved. For all you know you're going to do something terrible and tell God to take a hike. So none of us really know if we're saved, so we'd better stop asking other people if they are.
Slight problem with that.
RELIABLE HISTORY SOURCE A: Catholics were the only church for fifteen hundred years
RELIABLE HISTORY SOURCE B: The Catholic Church is a big conspiracy set in motion by a Caesar who name we don't know ("you know what those rocks are Bobbey?" "No Auntie." "That's where the Catholics are going to kill us when they take over").
Frankly, there is no reliable history 'till about 400 A.D. The Early Christians were a little busy trying not to get eaten, so they didn't have time for history.
Be careful when you say "they." Protestants were killing people too.
|
|
|
|
Post by falklands on Feb 10, 2006 21:23:12 GMT -5
We can't. You have to do it with God's help. I can't argue there. We try to live more holy lives with God helping us, but I don't think we can ever stop sinning completely. But whatever sins we do commit have been washed away by the Blood of Christ. He atoned for all our sins, so we do not have to atone for our own sins. I, on the other hand, think that living faith leads to works. If you have a faith that is living, then you're gonna be doing works. That faith saves you. The works don't. Here is my other unanswered comment from the other page: What was the point of the whole passage of James 2? Take it in context. Faith without works is dead: the kind of faith that does not produce works is dead. We are justified by the kind of faith that produces works, the works demonstrate our faith. Saying that works are a part of salvation DOES contradict the rest of the Bible, because Paul doesn't simply "emphasize" faith, he says that works do NOT save you. So, assuming he doesn't wan't to look dumb, heartofgold is a proponent of Sloth... There is indication that Jesus spoke figuratively of this. "I am the bread of life," (John 6:48); "I am the resurrection and the life," (John 11:25); "I am the true vine," (John 15:1). After Jesus said, "This is my blood," (Matt. 26:28), He said, “But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom,” (Matt. 26:29). Why would Jesus speak figuratively of His blood as "the fruit of the vine" if it was His literal blood? There is no indication the disciples thought the elements changed. Should we say that the disciples who were sitting right there with Jesus, actually thought that what Jesus was holding in his hands was his own body and blood? Also, the supper was instituted before Jesus' crucifixion. Are we to conclude that at the Last Supper, when they were all at the table, that when Jesus broke the bread it became His actual sacrificial body -- even though the sacrifice had not yet happened? Ah, the art of Sarcasm ... no, really, I should think it goes both ways. The Catholics were the only *official* church for so long partly because they heavily persecuted those who differed from them (at some points - note "partly"). Of course they were blessed by God and held to the core teachings of the faith (they were not necessarily right every single time) - at other times they abused their authority and spurned God's grace. People... |
|
Teckor
Full Member
.........what am I supposed to write? Something inspiring?
Posts: 154
|
Post by Teckor on Feb 11, 2006 16:26:15 GMT -5
Actually, I hadn't started reading the Foxes Book of Martyrs up till like 2 or 3 days ago, but I'd heard about what it said at my church.
Still, personally, just thinking about it right now, we've beat this subject to death. Although, I'd like to ask if we agree on the following things:
1) Not all Catholics are Christians
2) Not all people who claim to be "Christians" are.
3) There were reasons for separations from the Roman Church and even the Church of England.
4) Motives should be looked at critically and carefully (ie: why the Church f England was created)
That's about all I'd like to ask if we agree or disagree on. (I have the strong sense though that Heartofgold is going to disagree w/ #1).
|
|
|
|
Post by heartofgold on Feb 11, 2006 18:20:28 GMT -5
Well first off, it says, "you are justified by works" not "the kind of faith that produces works." Second, like I said, Paul didn't say works don't save you, he said they were meaningless without faith. Likewise James says faith is meaningless without works. But I still feel like this all comes out to the same thing. Even with your logic if you don't have works you're not going to heaven, but because then you wouldn't have living faith.
But still, look what James is saying. He's saying, "Don't just have faith, demons have that." You have to have living faith, which involves works.
Well this is all really interpretational, but as for the disciples believing it...
"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our savior, Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes. (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2, 7:1 [A.D. 110]) "
This is St. Ignatius of Antioch, one of John's disciples. If he says it, I believe him seeing as he actually talked to John.
There are a too many rumors about the evil Catholic Church going around. They didn't have an inquisition going on all the time. You have to realize that back then, the Catholic Church was the Christian church. If you weren't Catholic, then you weren't Christian. It was like Islam. Either you are or you aren't. There really wasn't anyone to persecute then. Also, though, if there was this "true" church hanging around, God sure let it die fast in the face of persecution. The Early Christians didn't die 'cause they were right.
But, admittedly, the Catholic Church did some things its not so proud of. But so did Israel, and they were still God's chosen people.
Well I'm definitely not going to deny any of those. Everyone messes up. Though you do have to realize there's never actually been an instance where the entire Catholic Church as one did something really bad.
Why? So far all I've had is, "you believe in purgatory." This is going to send Catholics to hell?" The Catholic Church doesn't teach that all you have to do is look religious. If you read Martin Luther's theses, you won't read, "Jesus is the son of God. We need to believe in him and be saved." Which seems to be all that's necessary.
I would agree with you there.
There were reasons for separation, nobody's denying that. But I think separation was a little far, Paul explicitly warned against it in fact. The Church needed reforming, but not separation.
Well, I suppose your right. But what possible other motive could the Catholic Church had had for having Christmas on the 25th?
|
|
|
|
Post by heartofgold on Feb 13, 2006 23:56:40 GMT -5
Well alright then, if everyone just agrees with me so much I'll go on to another topic... Alright, I'll do wine at communion now. So far what I've got is, "Jesus didn't drink alcoholic wine." Well, to refute this argument, we must first start with technicalities. The official definition of non alcoholic wine is (drum roll) Welshes Grape Juice!!!!!! Now, when I open my bible, I don't read "Jesus took the Welshes Grape Juice and said...", which makes me think that it was alcoholic. Alright, for biblical evidence. "Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging, and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise" (Prov. 20:1); "And do not get drunk on wine, in which lies debauchery" (Eph. 5:18). Now, here we have two great verses talking about wine. But the first thing you have to notice here is it does not say, "any and all alcohol is evil." It says, don't get drunk. "All things are lawful for me," but not all things are helpful. "All things are lawful for me," but I will not be enslaved by anything. (1 Cor. 6:12) Here we have a perfect example of what I'm talking about. For instance, kids are great (I know because I'm one, that definitely says something). But some kids are produced unlawfully. Does that mean we should ban kids? No. Anything in excess is bad, like cars. Cars in excess are very dangerous, but should we ban them? No (unless you said everyone should ride bikes in your nation). Alcohol is the same thing, in small quantities it can be beneficial to your health. Get drunk and you sinned. But there's a difference between getting drunk and drinking alcohol. More verses... "You may then exchange the money for whatever you desire, oxen or sheep, wine or strong drink, or anything else you would enjoy, and there before the Lord your God, you shall partake of it and make merry with your family" (Deut. 14:26). Well, he seems to thing its OK here. The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, 'Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners! (Luke 7:34). Well here you go. If Jesus were drinking Grape Juice, nobody would think him a drunkard. And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. (He was priest of God Most High.) (Genesis 14:18) and wine to gladden the heart of man, oil to make his face shine and bread to strengthen man's heart. (Psalm 104:15) (No longer drink only water, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments.) (1 Timothy 5:23) Also, at the wedding at Cana. If Jesus had turned the wine into Grape Juice, then why would the Master of the Feast say, "Everyone serves the good wine first, and when people have drunk freely, then the poor wine. But you have kept the good wine until now." No matter how much you drink Grape Juice, you can still discern between good and bad grape juice. Now, will somebody please come back?  |
|
|
|
Post by falklands on Feb 14, 2006 11:12:30 GMT -5
'course I will. Just you wait...
|
|
|
|
Post by heartofgold on Feb 14, 2006 14:04:57 GMT -5
Insert The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly theme music here.
|
|
Teckor
Full Member
.........what am I supposed to write? Something inspiring?
Posts: 154
|
Post by Teckor on Feb 14, 2006 16:18:38 GMT -5
when had we agreed on what you had said? All I was saying was that there are very clear facts which everyone should make sure their aware of. Now then about your wine-wine. Firstly, many of your verses are Old Testament, which is slightly off topic than what we're talknig about. Secondly, you have quoted in Deut. 14:26 that it says "wine or strong drink". Why would it make a difference unless there was one? Also, modern-day wine is simply spoiled grape juice. Thirdly, Luke 7:34 was said by the Pharisses (or the Saducces) who mind you, were "mortal enemies" of Jesus, they would lie, bend the truth, as much as they wanted as long as they made Jesus look bad. Fourthly, there are probably different "purities" of grape juice. Even today, there's concentrated, and then there 100% (Welches), all that it could be refering to is the purity of the drink or the fineness. Fifthly, if wine is alcoholic, then Jesus was encouraging drunkenness, then he was not pure or perfect, then he was not the Son of God. Furthermore, he'd have drank an impure substance (bad Welches grape juice, despite the fact that Welches didn't exist back then). Sixthly, we haven't agreed on the idea that the wine Jesus drank was alcoholic. These are just a few reasons which I have deduced from your reply. |
|
|
|
Post by heartofgold on Feb 14, 2006 17:41:08 GMT -5
What did I say we all agree on? I'm not sure what you're talking about.
Um, I'm not quite getting what you're saying. There was strong drink in the Old Testament. God's saying he thinks he should go get some (just don't get drunk on it).
But if he was drinking Grape Juice, they wouldn't have made that claim. These people were fairly smart, they knew nobody would believe them if they said he was a drunkard when he was drinking Grape Juice.
Yes, but in Jesus' time, grape juice was a juice squirted out of grapes. There weren't any varieties.
Like Paul said, there's a big difference between doing something, and doing something in excess. Small quantities of alcohol are good for you. Large quantities are not. All anyone is saying is don't get drunk. You don't just get drunk after drinking a small quantity of alcohol. To say Jesus was encouraging drunkenness is like saying your parents encourage speed racing down crowded streets by driving.
Wine is an alcoholic substance. If its not alcoholic, its not wine. The New Testament in Greek uses the same word for wine during the last supper as it does when Jesus says to drink some wine for you stomachs sake. Grape juice does nothing for your stomach.
|
|
|
|
Post by falklands on Feb 14, 2006 21:03:18 GMT -5
Oh well, I would have gone and replied to your last post on the previous topic but now a full discussion is in flow, so when we finish this one I'll reply to it. But now I'll just reply to the current topic.
It would do just to bring up the proofs that I quoted, so we can examine them right here:
"THE FIRST REASON IS BECAUSE OF HIS HOLY NATURE. In Heb. 7:26, we read that the Lord Jesus is "holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners." No doubt, the Saviour, being God in the flesh, had an air of holiness about Himself that could be seen by even the most casual observer. For instance, the profane soldiers, who were sent to arrest Him, gave as their reason for returning without Him, that "never a man spake like this man." (John 7:46) The words of Jesus were different; He, no doubt, had a very holy appearance, character, and speech.
Why is this so important? Consider this illustration. The word "cider" may mean an alcoholic beverage, or plain apple juice. Suppose we lived during the 1920s, prohibition days, and were approached by two people offering us a drink of cider. One of the persons, we knew to be one of the holiest men in town, faithful to the house of God, separated from the world, diligent in prayers, always witnessing to others; the other was a known liquor dealer. If each one offered us a drink of "his very own cider," we would assume that the holy person's was no more than apple juice, but there would be no doubt about our opinion regarding the liquor dealer's cider! Obviously, the character of a person influences what that one does.
Since the Lord Jesus Christ was "holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners," we may safely assume that He would not make that which is called in Scripture a mocker and deceiver of man, causing untold misery.
A SECOND REASON: HE WOULD NOT CONTRADICT SCRIPTURE. In Mt. 5:17-18, Christ made this clear, saying, "Think not that I am come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Therefore, Christ could not have contradicted Hab. 2:15, "Woe unto him that giveth his neighbor drink, that puttest thy bottle to him, and makest him drunken also, that thou mayest look on their nakedness!"
Certainly, Jesus knew that this verse was in the Bible; He was well-acquainted with Scripture, since it is His Word and was written about Him. He did not come to violate Scripture, but to fulfill it. He could not have done so, if He had made alcoholic wine and had given it to his neighbor.
Some people object to the use of this verse by saying that it would apply only to one who would give his neighbor drink for the purpose of looking on his nakedness. But we must remember: when one gives his neighbor something which will make him drunk, he is putting himself in the very class of those who do so in order to look on their nakedness. And since the Scripture commands us to "abstain from all appearance of evil" (1 Th. 5:22), we can be sure that the Lord Jesus would not have done something that would have been associated with such an evil practice as that described in Hab. 2:15. For the same reason, no Christian should be engaged in the selling of alcoholic beverage.
THE THIRD REASON IS THAT LEV. 10:9-11 COMMANDS THE PRIEST OF GOD, "DO NOT DRINK WINE NOR STRONG DRINK ... That Ye May Put Difference Between Holy And Unholy, And Between Unclean And Clean; and that ye may teach the children of Israel all the statues which the Lord hath spoken..." Now, since Heb. 2:17 calls Christ "a merciful and faithful high priest," we would expect Him to obey all Scriptures pertaining to that office. If He had made or drunk alcoholic wine, He would have disobeyed these verses and would have been disqualified from teaching the children of Israel the statues of the Lord.
THE FOURTH REASON IS FOUND IN A PASSAGE WHICH WE HAVE ALREADY CONSIDERED: PR. 31:4-5 PROHIBITS KINGS AND PRINCES FROM DRINKING ALCOHOLIC WINE OR ANY OTHER STRONG DRINK. IF THEY HAD DONE SO, THEIR JUDGMENT WOULD HAVE BEEN PERVERTED. It was necessary for Christ to obey these verses also, since He was Prince of Peace (Is. 9:6) and King of Kings (Rev. 19:16). In Mt. 27:11, He admitted to being the King of the Jews. He rode into Jerusalem on a donkey's colt, to fulfill Zec. 9:9, which prophesied that Israel's king would enter the city in just that way. Undoubtedly, He was king, and as such, would have had to obey Pr. 31:4-5.
REASON FIVE: CHRIST DID NOT COME TO MOCK OR DECEIVE PEOPLE, yet Pr. 20:1 says that wine does both. Rather than coming to mock or deceive he came to save!
REASON SIX: HE DID NOT COME TO SEND PEOPLE TO HELL. We have already seen that Is. 5:11-14 teaches that Hell had to be enlarged because of the drinking of alcoholic beverage. Christ did not come to send people to Hell; listen to Jn. 3:17: "For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved."
REASON SEVEN: CHRIST DID NOT COME TO CAST A STUMBLINGBLOCK BEFORE ANYONE; yet, Rom. 14:21 teaches that a person who gives another alcoholic wine does just that. "It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak." Everyone who has studied the problem of alcoholism has learned that some people cannot handle any amount of alcohol, while others may drink one or two "social" drinks and stop. Experts do not know why this is true; various theories have been propounded, but nothing has been proved to be true regarding every person. Some say it is chemical; others insist that it must be psychological. The fact is, we do not know for certain. In any given group of people, there would be several potential alcoholics. What a shame it would be for a person, who is a potential slave to it, to get his first taste at the Lord's table in church, then proceed down the road of misery to an alcoholic's grave!
I certainly would not want my children to get their first taste of alcohol at the family meal; nor would I want them to get it at church. One or more of them could well be potential alcoholics. As evidence that this is possible, we should consider that some denominations which serve alcoholic wine in their religious services also operate homes for alcoholic priests!
But we can be absolutely sure that Christ did not come to cause others to stumble!
THE EIGHTH REASON: JOHN 2, THE MIRACLE OF TURNING WATER INTO WINE, DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT IT BE ALCOHOLIC. Many insist that it was, on the basis of verse 10, which says, "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." They would say that, in those days, it was common to serve the best alcoholic wine at first, saving the worst until later, when men's tastes have been dulled by much drinking. But the point is just the opposite here! These people could definitely recognize that the wine which Jesus made was much better than what they had been served at first. This could not have been possible if they were already well on their way to becoming intoxicated! The fact is, neither the wine which they had at first, nor that which Christ made, was alcoholic.
REASON NINE IS FOUND IN THE SAME PASSAGE: THE LORD JESUS CHRIST WOULD NOT HAVE GOTTEN GLORY FROM MAKING DRUNK PEOPLE DRUNKER. Verse 11 is most important when it states that, by this miracle, Jesus "manifested forth his glory." Verse 10 indicates that the people had drunk quite a bit of whatever kind of wine they were drinking. If it had been alcoholic, they would have been intoxicated, or nearly so. Had Christ made alcoholic wine, He would have made drunk people drunker, or almost-drunk people completely drunk! Such a deed would certainly not have manifested any glory to Him!
This chapter also gives us the tenth reason: making drunk people drunker would not have caused his disciples to believe more strongly on him, yet verse 11 says that, as a result of what He did in turning the water into wine, "his disciples believed on him." Jn. 1:41 shows that they had already believed on Him as Messiah; this was a deepening of their faith and a proof that they had not been wrong. Would making drunk people drunker inspire such faith? The opposite would be likely! They were not looking for a Messiah who would pass out free booze! Thus, because of the description of this miracle and its result, we can not conclude otherwise than that this wine was non-alcoholic."
|
|
|
|
Post by heartofgold on Feb 15, 2006 0:01:49 GMT -5
But I don't think alcohol is a totally evil thing. That's like saying cars are evil because some people crash them, or speed race and such. Alcohol in small quantities has health benefits, large benefits and you get drunk and you sinned. But like I said, there's a big difference between drinking alcohol and getting drunk on it. I think Jesus would have had every right as a holy person to drink a little wine, just so long as he doesn't get drunk on it (which he didn't). Well that's true, but wine means wine. Wine doesn't, and never has, meant grape juice. The Greek says "wine." A fermented drink with alcohol. If a holy person came up and said, "want some wine?" I'd think he meant wine, since it doesn't have another meaning. Well great, but once again this proves what I'm saying. The bible says "don't get drunk." It doesn't say, "don't drink at all." Well like I said, this is great. Don't get drunk. But you can still drink a little wine. Well, Mr. Context  here's the verse in context. "You and your sons are not to drink wine or other fermented drink whenever you go into the Tent of Meeting, or you will die. This is a lasting ordinance for the generations to come. You must distinguish between the holy and the common, between the unclean and the clean, and you must teach the Israelites all the decrees the LORD has given them through Moses." It says don't drink wine in the Tent of Meeting. There's a difference. Ah, but it says don't crave strong drink. That means you're gonna get drunk on it. That's a sin. But there's a difference between being told not to crave it, and not to drink it. Once again, led astray by wine. There's a big difference between being led astray by wine, and drinking wine. A little wine at dinner isn't going to turn you into a disheveled drunk. |
|
|
|
Post by heartofgold on Feb 15, 2006 12:34:21 GMT -5
OK, discard everything I just said about the wedding feast at Cana. Its not 11:00 at night anymore and I've just released many things (insert "what O wise master?" here).
First off, it doesn't say they were drunk to begin with. Yes, there are going to be a few in the crowd, but this doesn't necessarily say they were all drunk. Second, these wedding feasts went on for days. Running out of wine was a very bad thing. So to conclude, he wasn't necessarily making drunk people drunker. And it wasn't like they had all fallen on the wine pots and disposed of it an a few hours and were sad. They had a few days to do that.
|
|
Teckor
Full Member
.........what am I supposed to write? Something inspiring?
Posts: 154
|
Post by Teckor on Feb 15, 2006 16:44:13 GMT -5
What did I say we all agree on? I'm not sure what you're talking about. dont play dumb, plz, it just doesn't look any good. Here's a quote from you to prove what my complaint was: Well alright then, if everyone just agrees with me so much I'll go on to another topic... No, he's saying that you have the choice to go get it. However, that doesn't mean that they should. Yes, and the Sadducces (or Pharisses) thought that people would be dumb enough to believe them when they said that Jesus was getting his power from Beelzebub(sp?). There are purities/fineness however. The very "good" stuff could have no/few large parts of grapes,etc. the poor kind would be quite chunky however. Yes, and as before "small quantities of anything (cocaine, marijuana, nicotene) are good for you". Although, you still have yet to prove that it was alcoholic wine that Paul was talking about. You sure grape juice doesn't do anything for your stomach? Furthermore, alcoholic wine is simply bad grape juice. Also, why do we have something called "non-alcoholic" wine if "wine is an alcoholic substance"? Also, just because it uses the same word doesn't mean much seeing as that you still have not verified that they were drinking "bad grape juice". Now then to continue, in the Book of Revelation, John talks about the "Wine Press of God". I would have to ask, why would it be called a "wine press" unless it creates "wine". If it doesn't create "wine", then it would/could have called it a "grape press", but it used the word "wine". Oh, I missed something you'd said. Listen, the Catholic Church also teaches that you can "work/pray" your way to Heaven, which is totally unbiblical. Also, the Catholic Church doesn't stress the importance of Jesus's death and that He's the one that saves, NOT the pope or any1 else. Also, confession of sins to a priest are not what saves a man either. Unfortunately, it's kinda hard to call for reform when they kept on killing (virtually) everyone who disagreed with them. John Huss, William Tyndale (who was the first person to translate the Bible to English, against the Catholic Church's orders), Wycliffe (who although died naturally was condemned bitterly by the Catholic Church as a heretic, which later commanded his bones to be burned), and many others who were killed/excomunicated in the past. (Information gained from "Foxes Book of Martyrs") Ehem, ehem. Greek former holliday. Ehem. Makes it easier for "Greeks" to keep a hold on a pagan ideal and yet be part of the Catholic Church. Sry, the list keeps pilling. You said that the context of a verse says "fermented drink". If wine is "alcoholic", then it would have not been mentioned, b/c in order for it to be alcoholic, it has to have "fermented". However, wine (like many fruit drinks) will ferment over time b/c of bacteria, hence making it alcoholic. |
|
|
|
Post by heartofgold on Feb 15, 2006 23:18:53 GMT -5
Oh, I was being sarcastic. Nobody had answered me for a few days and I was trying to get someone back (it worked too).
Well, no, if its bad he doesn't have the choice to go get it. It makes no sense. God's a pretty smart guy I've noticed. He puts evil things into the same category as oxen and sheep and makes absolutely no mention of it? If something is bad, you can't do it God says. God doesn't say, "go get sheep and oxen, and if you're really feeling evil, strong drink."
But there's a difference. Lots of spiritual things are unexplainable. There have been "good" people who turned out to get their power from Satan. But wine is wine, grape juice is grape juice. Its one thing to say "this guy gets his power from Satan." Heck, I might have believed that back then. Its another thing to say, "this guys getting drunk off of grape juice!" Then you're just spouting off nonsensical phrases.
Well first off, I'm not entirely sure what this has to do with what we're talking about. Yes, its possible. But I'm not sure how refined they were.
Well, no. Small quantities of drugs aren't good for you.
But there really isn't any such thing as non-alcoholic wine. Non-alcoholic wine is grape juice. Grape juice with alcohol in it is wine. Plain and simple. Non-alcoholic wine is just grape juice. The bible says wine, not grape juice.
Fairly certain yes.
Ahh, my point is proved. You can't go to the store and buy non-alcoholic wine. You can buy grape juice however.
Well, that's what I'm in the process of doing.
Well first off, could you give me the verse? I can't find it. Second, I'm not entirely sure what you're saying. Yea, if it says wine it means wine.
Well first off, define "work/pray." If you mean we interpreter James differently, that's not unbiblical. Second, no, the Catholic Church doesn't say you can earn you're way to heaven. You have to have faith. Saying you have to be good on top of that isn't total heresy.
No, the Catholic Church does NOT teach that the pope or anyone else can save. You have to have faith. You're not going anywhere without it.
None of this stuff is going to save you from hell if you're going there, but this is all good stuff. Confession is great, and I've explained before why we do it. Note, though, that its not some door to salvation. The problem here is, you think anything and everything the Catholic Church does is to be saved. No, the Catholic Church just has good stuff. Just accepting Christ isn't enough. You have to run the race. To be a Christian doesn't mean saying, "I've accepted Christ." You have to live it. Confession and other good stuff is just another way of being a good Christian.
Yes, during the Middle Ages (but not before, and not now), the Catholic Church did some things its not so proud of. So did Israel, but that didn't stop them from being God's chosen people. But are denying the evil Protestants did during the middle ages too?
Well, no. They kicked out the pagan holiday. They said, "that's gone, here's what you're gonna do." They didn't say, "OK, you can continue your completely pagan holiday of celebrating the birth of Christ."
Missed this one too. To be alcoholic is has to be fermented you say. Therefore fermented drink is alcoholic.
|
|
Teckor
Full Member
.........what am I supposed to write? Something inspiring?
Posts: 154
|
Post by Teckor on Feb 16, 2006 17:21:29 GMT -5
Well, no, if its bad he doesn't have the choice to go get it. It makes no sense. God's a pretty smart guy I've noticed. He puts evil things into the same category as oxen and sheep and makes absolutely no mention of it? If something is bad, you can't do it God says. God doesn't say, "go get sheep and oxen, and if you're really feeling evil, strong drink." your talking about the clean-unclean animals thing right? God's smart, yes, brilliant beyond belief, but he also knows that we have a choice, follow Him or not. how am I "spouting off nonsensical phrases"? I'm simply pointing out a very simple fact, that the Pharisses and Sadduccess weren't the most trustworthy people. They were liars, probably thieves, and probably much more (for the most part, maybe not all, but a number of them probably were). But couldn't that make the difference between a "good" wine and a "poor" wine? Believe it or not, there are studies out there that say that small amounts of marijuana are good for asma or as a pain reliever. That's just one example that I know. Also, have you ever seen the Bible say grape juice? I haven't, its mentioned grapes, but never grape juice. You'd be surprised what you miss. Have you ever taken a vitamin C drop? I have many times, it really helps with colds, but they point is that you hardly notice that it helps. Then why does my family buy non-alcoholic wine. Personally, your not doing a very good job. Revelation 14 19 And the angel thrust his sickle into the earth, and gathered the vine of the earth, and cast it into the great winepress of the wrath of God 20 And the winepress was trodden without the city, and blood came out of the winepress, even unto the horses bridles, by the space of a thouasnad and six hundred furlongs. Theres the verse. However, a wine"press" can't produce "wine", "wine" is fermented "grape juice", which takes time. However, if wine is grape juice (possibly unfermented under most circumstances, you have to rememeber, fruit tends to go bad very quickly in hot climates like the Middle East) then it would be called a "winepress". However, the Catholic Church did teach that you could "pay" to get out Purgatory, and that you had to confess to a priest to remove of your sins. You sure? John Foxe seems to have known better seeing as that his book mentions several times that a key issue with most of the "reformists" was that the Pope was seen as having the power to save you. Foxe lived from around 1516 to about 1580-90's. But you don't need to confess to a priest, you confess to God that "your messed up big time and that you cant save yourself". Yes, there is a "race" to "run", but your going there anyways if your saved. Yes, before too. There were ppl who stood up to the Church before Wycliffe did (who was the most notable first), but they either didn't live or they simply "sat down". You have an interesting point, the Church of England did promote some pretty bad things, although, you have to remember that it was virtually a law, that you had to be sanctioned by the Church of England to preach in any church in England. The Catholic Church however, was more inclined to simply "shut up" whoever stood up against them or disobeyed them. Furthermore, the Catholic Church was refusing the general populace knowledge that was very important (ie: the Bible in anything other than Latin, which only the rich or nobles or priests would know). So yes, the "Protestants" weren't always the best, but the "Catholics" were just as bad, at least. Then would you care to explain why they didn't choose another date? Or why the Greek tradition carries on even now? Seriously, where do you think they idea of a Christmas tree and gifts under it came from? From the Greeks. Not to say that I don't like either one, the date or the tree or the tradition, but I'd like to say that part of that is b/c of the fact that they don't mean to us what they meant to the Greeks then. Yes, a fermented drink is alcoholic. As a matter of fact, that's why it's alcoholic. But, back to what I said, the Bible distinguishes between "fermented drink" and "wine". If the "wine" was "fermented" then it would have read "fermented drink" and not "wine and fermented drink". |
|
awaz
Junior Member
Posts: 97
|
Post by awaz on Feb 16, 2006 19:09:42 GMT -5
From www.answers.com/wine&r=67wine (wîn) n. A beverage made of the fermented juice of any of various kinds of grapes, usually containing from 10 to 15 percent alcohol by volume. A beverage made of the fermented juice of any of various other fruits or plants. Something that intoxicates or exhilarates. The color of red wine. Wine Unless otherwise specified, wine refers to the naturally fermented juice of grapes. More broadly, the term can include alcoholic beverages created from other fruits and even vegetables. |
|
|
|
Post by falklands on Feb 16, 2006 21:05:46 GMT -5
I'll try and catch up with heartofgold's comments later, but in response to awaz's reference on wine, in today's culture wine is generally referred to as alcoholic. That does not necessarily mean it always was like that throughout the ages. Here is a list of quotes by people over time:
Aristotle ...new wine "it is WINE in name, but not in effect..." (4th century B.C.)
Callixenus ...they "were trampling on the grapes, and the NEW-WINE (gleukos) ran out over the whole road..." (300 B.C.)
Papias ..."Each grape shall yield 21`five and twenty measures of WINE (oinos)..." (90 A.D.)
Babylonian paraphrase on Genesis 27:25 speaks of "WINE reserved in its grapes."
The Gemara speaks of "WINE preserved in its grapes."
Suidas... "GLEUKUS ...the droppings of the grapes before being trodden..." (950 A.D.)
Sir Thomas Herbert speaks of WINE gotten from wounding the Toddy Tree and catching the juice (1638 A.D.)
John Parkinson under the heading "Vines" says: "The juice or liquor pressed out of the ripe grape is called VINUM, WINE..." (1640 A.D.)
Henry Southwell speaking of martyrs said that they were "like grapes when pressed, they yield luxuriant WINE" (1660 A.D.)
Thomas Blount speaks of must as NEW-WINE, or, "that which is first pressed out of the grape." (1670 A.D.)
Edward Phillips says of must, "WINE newly pressed from the grapes (1670 A.D.)
J.W. Gent speaks of "WINE-cinder" and "cherry-WINE." The juice of the cherry is "gently pressed" and makes "a very pleasant WINE" (1676 A.D.)
W. Robertson, "WINE; Vinum ... New-WINE; Mustum - New WINE that runs out with-out pressing." (1693 A.D.)
Thomas Sprat speaks of vessels into which is put "cute or unfermented WINE." (1702 A.D.)
J.M. Gesner says: "Once for all it must be observed, that the words VINUM (wine), VITIS (vine), UVAE (grape-clusters), and VINEA (vineyard), as kindred terms are sometimes used synonymously..." and "The juice of apples, pears, pomegranates, and sorbs, was called VINUM." (1730 A.D.)
Miller's Gardener's Dictionary: "The first time they lower the great beams upon the grapes, they (the French) call the WINE that runs out the WINE of Guotte, because it is the finest and most exquisite in the grape ... The WINE strains from the press into a puncheon ... Vin Bourra, as they call it, i.e., a new and sweet white WINE that has not worked..." (1748 A.D.)
E. Chambers speaks of, "Sweet WINE" which has not yet fermented; WINE which is called "Mere-goutte," mother-drop, which is the virgin-WINE; Burnt WINE is "boiled up with sugar." (1750 A.D.)
Samuel Johnson speaks of Must as "New WINE" (1773 A.D.)
John Parkhurst tells of Ovid applying the Latin "mecum" to mean "pure WINE as it is pressed out of the grapes."
J.F. Schleusner: "OINOS; generally VINUM liquor expressed from grapes whether new or old ...OINOS neos, VINUM novum i.e., must, alias gleukos...GLEUKOS, prop erly the liquor which drops from the grape before treading." (1810 A.D.)
Gesenius (in the last edition of his lexicon, 1844): "TIROSH, must, of the juice of the grape." (1844 A.D.)
James Donegan: "GLEUKOS; new, unfermented WINE, must ...SIRAION...a WINE prepared by boiling grapes..." (1826A.D.)
Noah Webster: "Must, New WINE; wine pressed from the grape but not fermented." (1828 A.D.)
S. Lee: "Ahsis; Literally, trodden. New WINE; the juice of the grape..." (1830 A.D.)
John Avenarius has: "Ahsis - mustum, which is recently expressed juice. German susz: susur WEIN..." (1588 A.D.)
Dr. Ure: "Juice, when newly expressed, and before it has begun to ferment, is called must, and in common language sweet WINE." (1836 A.D.)
H. Bullinger speaks of WINE running out of the wine-press (1573 A.D.)
Bretschneider: "Oinos neos, mustum. Sept. for ahsis and tirosh. 2...Gleukos, mustum. That which drops from the grapes before being trodden. Acts 2:13. Job 32:19 where the Hebrew is yayin." (1840A.D.)
Baron Liebig: "If a flask be filled with grape juice and made air-tight, and then kept for a few hours in boiling water. .. THE WINE does not now ferment." (1844 A.D.)
Encyclopedia Americana (1855): "The juice of the grape, when newly expressed, and before it has begun to ferment, is called must, and, in common language, SWEET WINE."
Furthermore, even in today's culture there is non-alcoholic wine. Search (maybe Google), and you'll find many references to non-alcholic wine.
|
|
|
|
Post by heartofgold on Feb 17, 2006 1:06:59 GMT -5
No, I'm talking about the fact that you're saying God put something totally evil in the same category as OK things without mentioning it at all. Its kinda like, "go get yourself some strong drink." "OK." *gets strong drink.* "Oh, sorry, I forgot to mention you're going to hell now."
Also, God never even gives you the choice to do something bad. You can, but its like you have the choice to walk around in a nuclear testing ground. Not so good. And nobodies actually going to tell you not to do it because they assume you're smart enough to figure it out on your own.
I'm not saying you're spouting, I'm saying the Pharisees would have been if they had said what you think they said. If I was you're typical Jew living back then, and someone came up to me and said, "this guy gets his power from the devil," I'd take him seriously because I don't know anything about him. If some guy comes up to me and says, "this guy's getting drunk off of grape juice!" I'm going to leave the babbling idiot to babble.
Well, great. But its still wine.
Yes, but you can become an addict just because of that. Marijuana is very, very easy to take in excess, so its something you should stay away from. However, a little wine at dinner, or a little wine for your stomach's sake, isn't going to turn you into a drunk.
Yes, but back then it was juice squeezed out of grapes. Not very many benefits to the stomach.
OK, sorry, I didn't know this product existed. This is a new field for me, so tell me if I'm wrong anywhere along the line. I assume the way they make it is by extracting the alcohol out of the wine after making it. So now I have to ask you a question. In 33 A.D., how do you extract alcohol out of wine? Now we have machines and such, but in 33 A.D, they didn't have this. How does Jesus get this non-alcoholic wine?
I'm sorry, but I am totally missing your point. This is all great stuff, but how does it relate?
I've said this before, but I guess I'll say it again. No, the Catholic Church did not teach that you could pay coins to get people out of Purgatory. There were a few evil people who twisted meanings, but the Catholic Church it self didn't make money. As for your second point, I've explained Confession before. Priests have a lot of power. If your in a state of mortal sin you need to go to Confession before you can take The Eucharist, which is a big deal.
Well first off, like I said, the Church was definitely messed up. It didn't, and doesn't, teach that the pope can save you. But a lot of evil people and a messed up church might have implied that to people. But no, the Catholic Church doesn't teach, and never has taught officially, that the pope can save you.
But the priests are mediators between God and man (Leviticus 19:20-22). You can confess to a priest.
But how are you "saved"? Do you just have to accept Christ? Then you can just sit back and be evil all you want because you've accepted him? You yourself said you can kill someone with no consequences, so why does God give us the ten commandments? Why do we even have a justice system? Why did Israel have a justice system? Why is there a hell? This view that you didn't have salvation doesn't work. If you honestly and truly believe that, then you'd stop calling yourself saved, because you might not be.
Then none of the bad stuff Catholics did is half is bad, because they were just killing other bad people, right? Also, this brings up the point (again), where was this true church? If both sides were evil, where was the good one? Where did all the Christians go? Where are all the Christians now? This enlightened bunch showed up again 100 years ago. Where were they before?
Because it doesn't make any sense. To kick out a holiday you have to have something to replace it. And the Christmas tree and gifts, first off, didn't show up for a while, and second, like you said, don't mean anything to us anyway.
This is all great, but how does it relate (I'm a poet and I didn't even know it)?
|
|
Show me the proof of verses that say that salvation can be lost (partially I'm lazy but I'd think that the way you put it they'd be easy to find in the Bible). Yes, good people do bad things, does that mean that they've somehow lost their salvation? Not really seeing as that then Jesus's death wouldn't have removed our sins but merely act as a "patch". They were saved all the time then, not just when they were good, but when they were bad too. As a matter of fact, that's why Jesus died, b/c we are bad, and we can't save ourselves, God had to throw the rope right to us. It's our choice to grab hold and let Him help us.
here's the verse in context.