Fruit of the vine

[santaro75]

Hey I was just wondering why many churches use grape juice instead of wine. And since this is the history thread...

1)what is the history of using grape juice instead of wine
2)what did the people in the era of Jesus use for their communion
:wink:

[Anoetos]

1)what is the history of using grape juice instead of wine

Probably started with the Methodists who were deeply involved in the temperance movement. The holiness movement (rooted in Methodism) went on to impact all the churches to greater or lesser degree so that even churches which had or have nothing to do with the movement now generally offer grapejuice instead of wine.

IMO, it's stoopit.

2)what did the people in the era of Jesus use for their communion

They used alcoholic wine.

[learning]

As one who goes to a church that uses grape juice, the story I have heard is, that alchoholics, have a problem with wine, so even a taste of it, could set them on a bender again. So, the church uses grape juice to help alchoholics not be tempted.

[Spinyn00bman]

WHy is it a big deal?

My church uses grape juice as well. I like this as I don't like the taste of red wine, so the grape juice is more palatable.

But I have also been in churches that use the wine and that did not stop me from taking communion.

I kinda think the point is the remembrance, not the actual liquid used.

Just my opinion.

[Pilgrim]

The use of grape juice comes from the temperance movement and prohibition. It continues today in large part out of consideration for the recovering alcoholic who would be excluded from the service if wine was used.

In Chrit's time it was indeed fermented juice being used regardless of what revisionists will tell you. This is because the fermented juice lasted longer.

My church uses grape juice but I know of protestant churches that will use both wine and grape juice. If it's white it is wine, if it is red it is juice. I like that idea.

[Redwolf]

As one who goes to a church that uses grape juice, the story I have heard is, that alchoholics, have a problem with wine, so even a taste of it, could set them on a bender again. So, the church uses grape juice to help alchoholics not be tempted.



You do not know for certain why your church uses grape juice rather than wine? That seems odd.

Alcohol is forbidden in the Bible. Do a google on why 'Christians should not drink wine'.

Fermented grape juice is a corruption of a healthful drink, and Christ had nothing to do with corruption.

Let it not occur to you that Christ made fermented wine at the wedding feast, unless you can see him contribute to getting the guests schnockered.

"Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise." Proverbs 20:1

The God of the Old Testament is the same God we have today. He wants his creatures to be healthy and happy and not indulge in mind-altering drugs.

The word 'wine' is a collective, the same as the word 'meat'.

I hope that helps.

[Redwolf]

They used alcoholic wine.


proof it!

[Spinyn00bman]

You do not know for certain why your church uses grape juice rather than wine? That seems odd.

Alcohol is forbidden in the Bible. Do a google on why 'Christians should not drink wine'.

Fermented grape juice is a corruption of a healthful drink, and Christ had nothing to do with corruption.

Let it not occur to you that Christ made fermented wine at the wedding feast, unless you can see him contribute to getting the guests schnockered.

"Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise." Proverbs 20:1

The God of the Old Testament is the same God we have today. He wants his creatures to be healthy and happy and not indulge in mind-altering drugs.

The word 'wine' is a collective, the same as the word 'meat'.

I hope that helps.

What crazy version of the bible do you use?

[{Tim}]

Alcohol is forbidden in the Bible.
:rofl:

[Spinyn00bman]

I think the thread just went from The Fruit of the Vine to Make Up Whatever You Want the Bible to Say.

In that case....hedgehogs are holy animals according to scripture.

[Redwolf]

What crazy version of the bible do you use?


I use the crazy King James Version, but any other crazy version will do.

So, you didn't bother to look it up, rather suggesting the Bible contradicts itself from one book to the next and rather suggesting that Christ would make a harmful thing for the wedding party.

That's par!

[Cynic Sage]

proof it!

I'll just pop into my time machine...




:lol:

[Redwolf]

:rofl:


:geebob: :b_lame:

[Pilgrim]

proof it!
In the Old Testament, the Hebrew word (pronounced) yah-yin is translated as "wine." The Hebrew word means fermented, as in wine, not grape juice. To prove that it means wine, not grape juice, it was from yah-yin that Noah became drunk:


And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: And he drank of the wine [i.e. yah-yin], and was drunken" (Genesis 9:20-21 KJV)

So does that mean that drinking wine was a sin, because righteous Noah (Genesis 6:9) on one occasion drank too much? No. God, for example, thereafter commanded that wine, the same substance, yah-yin, that Noah once got drunk on, be used in the holy sacrifices to Him.


Seven days thou shalt make an atonement for the altar, and sanctify it; and it shall be an altar most holy: whatsoever toucheth the altar shall be holy ... And with the one lamb a tenth deal of flour mingled with the fourth part of an hin of beaten oil; and the fourth part of an hin of wine [yah-yin] for a drink offering.(Exodus 29:37,40 KJV)

There were circumstances in the Old Testament era when consuming alcohol was prohibited, but as matter of ceremonial observance, not because alcohol itself was sinful. Consuming wine was not a sin during the Old Testament era. It was even included among the blessings of the Promised Land:


Israel then shall dwell in safety alone: the fountain of Jacob shall be upon a land of corn and wine [yah-yin]; also his heavens shall drop down dew. (Deuteronomy 33:28 KJV)

What about later, in the New Testament era; was it wine, or grape juice?

The Greek word translated as "wine" in the New Testament is pronounced oy-nos which means wine, not grape juice. We know that because the word is used where people are warned not to drink to excess and get drunk from it. No such warning would be necessary if it were grape juice.


And be not drunk with wine [oy-nos], wherein is excess (Ephesians 5:18 KJV)

Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine [oy-nos](1 Timothy 3:8 KJV)

In the very same breath, Paul said to "keep thyself pure" and "use a little wine":

"Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men's sins: keep thyself pure. Drink no longer water, but use a little wine [oy-nos] for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities."

[Pilgrim]

You do not know for certain why your church uses grape juice rather than wine? That seems odd.

Alcohol is forbidden in the Bible. Do a google on why 'Christians should not drink wine'.

Fermented grape juice is a corruption of a healthful drink, and Christ had nothing to do with corruption.

Let it not occur to you that Christ made fermented wine at the wedding feast, unless you can see him contribute to getting the guests schnockered.

"Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise." Proverbs 20:1

The God of the Old Testament is the same God we have today. He wants his creatures to be healthy and happy and not indulge in mind-altering drugs.

The word 'wine' is a collective, the same as the word 'meat'.

I hope that helps.
This is the classic example of Eisogesis. The poster has determined a priori that wine is bad. Since Christ wouldn't touch something bad, then the Bible must be interpreted to say that wine is forbidden. The problem with this is that one should work from the Bible to belief, not from ones belief back to the Bible.

[Redwolf]

I'll just pop into my time machine...




:lol:



Here's a little help for you and the other 'laughers'.

Procedure. The procedure we shall follow is to trace the secular usage of the word "wine" backward, from English, to Latin, Greek and finally Hebrew. This historical survey across four languages is justified by the fact that the English word "wine" is directly related linguistically to the Latin vinum, the Greek oinos, and the Hebrew yayin. The relationship of sound and look between these words becomes clearer when we place these respective words side by side without the case ending um for the Latin vin(um), os for the Greek oin(os) and without the prefix ya for the Hebrew (ya)yin (originally yayin). Without the case endings or suffix these four words look like this: wine, vin, oin, yin. The linguistic relationship among them is self-evident. They all have a similar stem in common. This indicates that it is the sound of the same word which has been transliterated rather than the equivalent meaning which has been translated with a different word.

From:
http://www2.andrews.edu/~samuele/books/wine_in_the_bible/1.html

Have fun learning something.

[Redwolf]

In the Old Testament, the Hebrew word (pronounced) yah-yin is translated as "wine." The Hebrew word means fermented, as in wine, not grape juice. To prove that it means wine, not grape juice, it was from yah-yin that Noah became drunk:


And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: And he drank of the wine [i.e. yah-yin], and was drunken" (Genesis 9:20-21 KJV)

So does that mean that drinking wine was a sin, because righteous Noah (Genesis 6:9) on one occasion drank too much? No. God, for example, thereafter commanded that wine, the same substance, yah-yin, that Noah once got drunk on, be used in the holy sacrifices to Him.


Seven days thou shalt make an atonement for the altar, and sanctify it; and it shall be an altar most holy: whatsoever toucheth the altar shall be holy ... And with the one lamb a tenth deal of flour mingled with the fourth part of an hin of beaten oil; and the fourth part of an hin of wine [yah-yin] for a drink offering.(Exodus 29:37,40 KJV)

There were circumstances in the Old Testament era when consuming alcohol was prohibited, but as matter of ceremonial observance, not because alcohol itself was sinful. Consuming wine was not a sin during the Old Testament era. It was even included among the blessings of the Promised Land:


Israel then shall dwell in safety alone: the fountain of Jacob shall be upon a land of corn and wine [yah-yin]; also his heavens shall drop down dew. (Deuteronomy 33:28 KJV)

What about later, in the New Testament era; was it wine, or grape juice?

The Greek word translated as "wine" in the New Testament is pronounced oy-nos which means wine, not grape juice. We know that because the word is used where people are warned not to drink to excess and get drunk from it. No such warning would be necessary if it were grape juice.


And be not drunk with wine [oy-nos], wherein is excess (Ephesians 5:18 KJV)

Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine [oy-nos](1 Timothy 3:8 KJV)

In the very same breath, Paul said to "keep thyself pure" and "use a little wine":

"Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men's sins: keep thyself pure. Drink no longer water, but use a little wine [oy-nos] for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities."




I don't think so. However, if you think so, then be my guest.

Keep in mind, that a schnockered Christ is better than no Christ at all. Eh?

[Pilgrim]

The relationship between the Hebrew and the others is coincidental. Yayin and wine are not cognates and the etymologies of the word from the semetic langauge and the western languages is totally different. More eisogesis I'm afraid.

[Cynic Sage]

I don't think so. However, if you think so, then be my guest.

Keep in mind, that a schnockered Christ is better than no Christ at all. Eh?

This mau come as a surprise to you, but not everybody who drinks wine is a raging alcoholic.

[Pilgrim]

I don't think so. However, if you think so, then be my guest.

Keep in mind, that a schnockered Christ is better than no Christ at all. Eh?
It would be nice if you actually commented on the content of the post. You have not really shown at all why your rather subjective interpretation is the right one. Pithy as the schnookered Christ was, it was pretty far from the truth. Matter of fact, I can't remember anyone making the absurd argument that wine = a drunk Christ.

Sounds to me like you are trying hard to deal with your own hang ups. Come to scripture with an empty hand rather than bringing your own baggage to it.

[Arnold]

what did the people in the era of Jesus use for their communion?

Nothing - the idea of biblical communion is a myth.

[Anoetos]

Use of alcoholic beverages, especially one so low in alcohol content as grape wine is not at all harmful provided it is used in moderation.

Rather the opposite in fact, it's actually good for you.

[Pilgrim]

So you think the parts with Jesus gathering around the table for the last time and breaking bread and pouring the wine while equating the action to the breaking of his body and his admonition to continue to break bread together are later additions?

[Arnold]

So you think the parts with Jesus gathering around the table for the last time and breaking bread and pouring the wine while equating the action to the breaking of his body and his admonition to continue to break bread together are later additions?

I presume that question is for me.

No, I they are original. They do not say what the Church has taught you to believe. Christ was not instituting a religious ritual but demonstrating how the disciples should live - in an attitude of thanksgiving, whether for food or drink or whatever. It is the same thing with the washing of feet. Jesus was not instituting a ritual for church goers to wash each other's feet. He was simply illustrating that each person should act as a servant to others.

The Lord's Supper in the early Church was a community meal for the purpose of fellowship. In the Corinthian letter Paul was addressing the depravity in Corinthian church where they were getting drunk, and some would gorge themselves on the community meal before others had arrived, and had no qualms about eating food that had come from sacrifices to demons. If you read all of the passages about the Lord's Supper in the Gospels, Acts and Corinthians you will see there is no such thing as the Church definition of "Communion" in the Scriptures.

[Spiritus Naturae]

The use of grape juice comes from the temperance movement and prohibition. It continues today in large part out of consideration for the recovering alcoholic who would be excluded from the service if wine was used.

In Chrit's time it was indeed fermented juice being used regardless of what revisionists will tell you. This is because the fermented juice lasted longer.

My church uses grape juice but I know of protestant churches that will use both wine and grape juice. If it's white it is wine, if it is red it is juice. I like that idea.


I was always curious about this too. I started a thread on it in Ecclesiology and it died a quick death. My problem with those who said it was simply the 'fruit of the vine' was how could it have been preserved without refrigeration? Wouldnt it have naturally fermented without any help from yeast or additives because of the lack of refrigeration? I have always thought it to be very intellectually dishonest to say that the 'wine' of Christs time was simply grape juice.

[Spiritus Naturae]

I think the thread just went from The Fruit of the Vine to Make Up Whatever You Want the Bible to Say.

In that case....hedgehogs are holy animals according to scripture.

Dont forget the "Holy Laughing Cabbage of Antioch". :spiritus:

[Cynic Sage]

I presume that question is for me.

No, I they are original. They do not say what the Church has taught you to believe. Christ was not instituting a religious ritual but demonstrating how the disciples should live - in an attitude of thanksgiving, whether for food or drink or whatever. It is the same thing with the washing of feet. Jesus was not instituting a ritual for church goers to wash each other's feet. He was simply illustrating that each person should act as a servant to others.

I would have to disagree with you, albeit slightly. The ritual of communion is a ritual of rememberance, and Christ instructed this at Passover, a religious ritual-meal.

The Lord's Supper in the early Church was a community meal for the purpose of fellowship. In the Corinthian letter Paul was addressing the depravity in Corinthian church where they were getting drunk, and some would gorge themselves on the community meal before others had arrived, and had no qualms about eating food that had come from sacrifices to demons. If you read all of the passages about the Lord's Supper in the Gospels, Acts and Corinthians you will see there is no such thing as the Church definition of "Communion" in the Scriptures.

23For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." 25In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me."

[Arnold]

The new wine was freshly made wine basically as we know it today. Old wine was processed into a syrup and when served was mixed with water to regenerate it to a drinkable solution. Both contained alcohol, but the old wine lost much of its potency in the process to make the syrup.

[Arnold]

I would have to disagree with you, albeit slightly. The ritual of communion is a ritual of rememberance, and Christ instructed this at Passover, a religious ritual-meal.

Christ did not institue a ritual. He was saying that as long as you eat and drink (live) do it as a disciple of Him - in other words, do not forget who's disciple you are even in the simple act of eating and drinking. The Corinthians forgot or did not know this admonition and Paul readmonished them in the Corinthian letter.

Christ was not about instituting rituals, but abolishing them. Faith in Christ is our communion, not external works of law (ritual).

[Redwolf]

It would be nice if you actually commented on the content of the post. You have not really shown at all why your rather subjective interpretation is the right one. Pithy as the schnookered Christ was, it was pretty far from the truth. Matter of fact, I can't remember anyone making the absurd argument that wine = a drunk Christ.

Sounds to me like you are trying hard to deal with your own hang ups. Come to scripture with an empty hand rather than bringing your own baggage to it.


I hope this 'hand' is full enough. 75 ways to leave your lover, alcohol.

1) Genesis 9:20-26 - Noah became drunk; the result was immorality and family trouble.

2) Genesis 19:30-38 - Lot was so drunk he did not know what he was doing; this led to immorality

3) Leviticus 10:9-11 - God commanded priests not to drink so that they could tell the difference between the holy and the unholy. (Neither can anyone else tell the difference. Certainly, not many even know what the word 'holy' actually means, especially when pertaining to HOLY GOD).

4) Numbers 6:3 - The Nazarites were told to eat or drink nothing from the grape vine.

5) Deuteronomy 21:20 - A drunken son was stubborn and rebellious.

6) Deuteronomy 29:5-6 - God gave no grape juice to Israel nor did they have intoxicating drink in the wilderness.

7) Deuteronomy 32:33 - Intoxicating wine is like the poison of serpents, the cruel venom of asps.

8) Judges 13:4, 7, 14 - Samson was to be a Nazarite for life. His mother was told not to drink wine or strong drink. (I just finished a discusion with some muslims on another board, who claim that our God encourages FAS, by allowing us to drink wine, making his god so much better).

9) 1 Samuel 1:14-15 - Accused, Hannah said she drank no wine.

10) 1 Samuel 25:32-38 - Nabal died after a drunken spree.

11) 2 Samuel 11:13 - By getting Uriah drunk, David hoped to cover his sin.

12) 2 Samuel 13:28-29 - Amnon was drunk when he was killed.

13) 1 Kings 16:8-10 - The king was drinking himself into drunkenness when he was assassinated

14) 1 Kings 20:12-21 - Ben-Hadad and 32 other kings were drinking when they were attacked and defeated by the Israelites.

15) Esther 1:5-12 - The king gave each one all the drink he wanted. The king was intoxicated when he commanded the queen to come.

16) Psalm 75:8 - The Lord’s anger is pictured as mixed wine poured out and drunk by the wicked.

17) Proverbs 4:17 - Alcoholic drink is called the wine of violence.

18) Proverbs 20:1 - Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging.

19) Proverbs 23:19-20 - A wise person will not be among the drinkers of alcoholic beverages.

20) Proverbs 23:21 - Drunkenness causes poverty.

21) Proverbs 23:29-30 - Drinking causes woe, sorrow, fighting, babbling, wounds without cause and red eyes.

22) Proverbs 23:31 - God instructs not to look at intoxicating drinks.

23) Proverbs 23:32 - Alcoholic drinks bite like a serpent, sting like an adder.

24) Proverbs 23:33 - Alcohol causes the drinker to have strange and adulterous thoughts, produces willfulness, and prevents reformation.

25) Proverbs 23:34 - Alcohol makes the drinker unstable

26) Proverbs 23:35 - Alcohol makes the drinker insensitive to pain so he does not perceive it as a warning. Alcohol is habit forming.

27) Proverb 31:4-5 - Kings, Princes, and others who rule and judge must not drink alcohol. Alcohol perverts good judgment.

28) Proverbs 31:6-7 - Strong drink could be given to those about to perish or those in pain. Better anesthetics are available today.

29) Ecclesiastes 2:3 - The king tried everything, including intoxicating drink, to see if it satisfied. It did not. (Ecclesiastes 12:8)

30) Ecclesiastes 10:17 - A land is blessed when its leaders do not drink.

31) Isaiah 5:11-12 - Woe to those who get up early to drink and stay up late at night to get drunk.

32) Isaiah 5:22 - Woe to "champion" drinkers and "experts" at mixing drinks.

33) Isaiah 19:14 - Drunken men stagger in their vomit.

34) Isaiah 22:12-13 - The Israelites choose to drink; their future looks hopeless to them.

35) Isaiah 24:9 - Drinkers cannot escape the consequences when God judges.

36) Isaiah 28:1 - God pronounces woe on the drunkards of Ephraim.

37) Isaiah 28:3 - Proud drunkards shall be trodden down.

38) Isaiah 28:7 - Priests and prophets stagger and reel from beer and wine, err in vision, and stumble in judgment.

39) Isaiah 28:8 - Drinkers’ tables are covered with vomit and filth.

40) Isaiah 56:9-12 - Drinkers seek their own gain and expect tomorrow to be just like today.

41) Jeremiah 35:2-14 - The Rechabites drank no grape juice or intoxicating wine and were blessed.

42) Ezekiel 44:21 - Again God instructed the priests not to drink wine.

43) Daniel 1:5-17 - Daniel refused the king’s intoxicating wine and was blessed for it along with his abstaining friends.

44) Daniel 5:1 - Belshazzar, ruler of Babylon; led his people in drinking.

45) Daniel 5:2-3 - The king, along with his nobles, wives, and concubines, drank from the goblets which had been taken from God’s temple.

46) Daniel 5:4 - Drinking wine was combined with praising false gods.

47) Daniel 5:23 - God sent word to Belshazzar that punishment would be swift for the evil he had committed.

48) Hosea 4:11 - Intoxicating wine takes away intelligence.

49) Hosea 7:5 - God reproves princes for drinking.

50) Joel 1:5 - Drunkards awake to see God’s judgment.

51) Joel 3:3 - The enemy is judged for selling girls for wine.

52) Amos 2:8 - Unrighteous acts of Israel included the drinking of wine which had been taken for the payment of fines.

53) Amos 2:12 - Israel is condemned for forcing Nazarites to drink wine.

54) Micah 2:11 - Israelites are eager to follow false teachers who prophesy plenty of intoxicating drinks.

55) Nahum 1:10 - The drunkards of Nineveh will be destroyed by God.

56) Habakkuk 2:5 - A man is betrayed by wine.

57) Habakkuk 2:15 - Woe to him that gives his neighbor drink.

58) Habakkuk 2:16 - Drinking leads to shame.

59) Matthew 24:48-51 - A drinking servant is unprepared for his Lord’s return.

60) Luke 1:15 - John the Baptist drank neither grape juice nor wine.

61) Luke 12:45 - Christ warned against drunkenness.

62) Luke 21:34 - Drunkenness will cause a person not to be ready for the Lord’s return.

63) Romans 13:13 - Do not walk in drunkenness or immorality.

64) Romans 14:21 - Do not do anything that will hurt your testimony as a believer.

65) 1 Corinthians 5:11 - If a Christian brother is a drinker, do not associate with him.

66) 1 Corinthians 6:10 - Drunkards will not inherit the kingdom of God

67) Galatians 5:21 - Acts of the sinful nature, such as drunkenness, will prohibit a person from inheriting the kingdom of God.

68) Ephesians 5:18 - In contrast to being drunk with wine, the believer is to be filled with the Spirit.

69) 1 Thessalonians 5:6-7 - Christians are to be alert and self-controlled, belonging to the day. Drunkards belong to the night and darkness.

70) 1 Timothy 3:2-3 - Bishops (elders) are to be temperate, sober, and not near any wine.

71) 1 Timothy 3:8 - Deacons are to be worthy of respect and not drinkers.

72) 1 Timothy 3:11 - Deacons’ wives are to be temperate and sober.

73) Titus 1:7-8 - An overseer is to be disciplined.

74) Titus 2:2-3 - The older men and older women of the church are to be temperate and not addicted to wine.

75) 1 Peter 4:3-4 - The past life of drunkenness and carousing has no place in the Christian’s life.


A rejoinder might be......'well, I'm not talking about getting drunk'
A rejoinder might be......'well, is a little bit of sin like a little bit of cancer or a little bit of alcohol, or a little bit of poison?

What starts with 'a little bit'?

My own hang-up, Pilgrim, is the perplexity that a little bit of evil is a good thing.

[Redwolf]

Dont forget the "Holy Laughing Cabbage of Antioch". :spiritus:


Flying koalas, too! :wink:

[Redwolf]

I was always curious about this too. I started a thread on it in Ecclesiology and it died a quick death. My problem with those who said it was simply the 'fruit of the vine' was how could it have been preserved without refrigeration? Wouldnt it have naturally fermented without any help from yeast or additives because of the lack of refrigeration? I have always thought it to be very intellectually dishonest to say that the 'wine' of Christs time was simply grape juice.


Here is some intellectual dishonesty for you.

Rev. Henry Homes, an American missionary to Constantinople, in his article on wine published in the Bibliotheca Sacra (May 1848) gives this account of his observations: "Simple grape-juice, without the addition of any earth to neutralize the acidity, is boiled from four to five hours, so as to reduce it one-fourth the quantity put in. After the boiling, for preserving it cool, and that it be less liable to ferment, it is put into earthen instead of wooden vessels, closely tied over with skin to exclude the air. It ordinarily has not a particle of intoxicating quality, being used freely by both Mohammedans and Christians. Some which I have had on hand for two years has undergone no change."49

http://www2.andrews.edu/~samuele/books/wine_in_the_bible/3.html

Or find your own source that outlines the process of keeping grapes from spoiling. The net is replete with this information.

[Redwolf]

This mau come as a surprise to you, but not everybody who drinks wine is a raging alcoholic.

And this may come as a surprise to you. Everyone who drinks alcohol has the potential of becoming one, and no one knows to what elevations that first sip will take the taster.

[Cynic Sage]

And this may come as a surprise to you. Everyone who drinks alcohol has the potential of becoming one, and no one knows to what elevations that first sip will take the taster.

It's not a surprise to me. But then again, everyone who eats is a potential glutton, every man is a potential Rapist, every child a potential axe-murderer, we're all a potential something good, something bad.

But still, you said "Shnockered Christ", not "Potentially Shnockered Christ".

BTW: I am a teetotaler, I had only tasted alcohol once in my life, and it was at an Anglican communion service during my time in Japan (it was the only church I could find). I don't care about defending alcohol, It's just a pet peeve of mine when folks overtly generalize and perform eisegesis on scripture.

[Arnold]

It's not a surprise to me. But then again, everyone who eats is a potential glutton, every man is a potential Rapist, every child a potential axe-murderer, we're all a potential something good, something bad.

But still, you said "Shnockered Christ", not "Potentially Shnockered Christ".

BTW: I am a teetotaler, I had only tasted alcohol once in my life, and it was at an Anglican communion service during my time in Japan (it was the only church I could find). I don't care about defending alcohol, It's just a pet peeve of mine when folks overtly generalize and perform eisegesis on scripture.

If you ever decide to get adventurous buy a bottle of ice wine. It is liquid heaven!

[Cynic Sage]

Christ was not about instituting rituals, but abolishing them. Faith in Christ is our communion, not external works of law (ritual).

I would have to disagree with you again. I do not view communion as a salvic ritual, but a ritual of rememberance. Christian's celebrate the Eucharist for the same reason that Jews celebrate the Passover: To come together as a group and remember how God has saved them.

[Cynic Sage]

If you ever decide to get adventurous buy a bottle of ice wine. It is liquid heaven!

:bonk: Arnold, to you have any tact? I was trying to get Redwolf off the defensive and avoid a potential flame war, but then you go: "OH, THAT ICE WINE, IT'S LIQUID HEAVEN." Oy Vey!:twitch: Man, What were you thinking?

[Arnold]

I would have to disagree with you again. I do not view communion as a salvic ritual, but a ritual of rememberance. Christian's celebrate the Eucharist for the same reason that Jews celebrate the Passover: To come together as a group and remember how God has saved them.

I'm not sure why you thought I was referring to salvation, but I wasn't. Nonetheless, there is no example or admonishment of such a ritual in Scripture. The ritual is based on an erroneous interpretation of Scripture. Relating to God through ritual (law) was abolished on the cross - indeed it was nailed to the cross.

[Arnold]

:bonk: Arnold, to you have any tact? I was trying to get Redwolf off the defensive and avoid a potential flame war, but then you go: "OH, THAT ICE WINE, IT'S LIQUID HEAVEN." Oy Vey!:twitch: Man, What were you thinking?

Try some - you won't care about any flame-wars! :cheers:

[Pilgrim]

And this may come as a surprise to you. Everyone who drinks alcohol has the potential of becoming one, and no one knows to what elevations that first sip will take the taster.
That's not technically true. Alcholism is heavily reliant on genetic factors and body chemistry. Not everyone will have those issues and most people know their family history so...

[Pilgrim]

As often as you eat this bread and Drink this cup you proclaim my dying and my rising untill I come again

or

Do this in rememberance of me

It's not about some sort of saving ritual, it's about community and rememberance.

[Cynic Sage]

I'm not sure why you thought I was referring to salvation, but I wasn't. Nonetheless, there is no example or admonishment of such a ritual in Scripture. The ritual is based on an erroneous interpretation of Scripture. Relating to God through ritual (law) was abolished on the cross - indeed it was nailed to the cross.

Law doesn't save us, faith does.
However, fath manifests itself through action.

It is through Christ's sacrifice we are reconciled to God, not through rituals of our own doing. However, the ritual of communion is performed as a ritual of remembrance. It is to be performed out of gratitude, not fear that "if I don't eat this stuff I'm-a-goin-to-hay-ull."

Saying we shouldn't come together to perform Eucharist is like saying we shouldn't come together to celebrate Easter, or meet on Sundays.

[Pilgrim]

Law doesn't save us, faith does.
However, fath manifests itself through action.

It is through Christ's sacrifice we are reconciled to God, not through rituals of our own doing. However, the ritual of communion is performed as a ritual of remembrance. It is to be performed out of gratitude, not fear that "if I don't eat this stuff I'm-a-goin-to-hay-ull."

Saying we shouldn't come together to perform Eucharist is like saying we shouldn't come together to celebrate Easter, or meet on Sundays.
:thumb:

[Arnold]

Again - I have never talked about this as a salvation issue. Why do you keep bringing this up?

The problem with accepting what Jesus did in the upper room as an institution of a ritual is that there is no other corroborating Scripture to support this interpretation. There is no example of this ritual done by the Church, and the Lord's Supper portrayed in Corinthians does not resemble this ritual at all. The Church has taken one piece of Scripture and extrapolated out of it a ritual that goes way beyond the importance Scripture places on it. This is no way to understand Scripture. It is not up to the Church to determine the importance of doctrine, rather the Scriptures illustrate their own importance through the evidence they provide.

I will give you another example of where the Church has placed its own hierarchy of doctrine over that of Scripture. Much of the Church insists we must obey Christ's commandments. But I can show you a doctrine that is completely ignored even though there is a multitude of scriptural evidence to support it:

Mt.19.21 Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven.

Lk.12.32-34 "Do not be afraid, little flock, for your Father has been pleased to give you the kingdom. Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will not be exhausted, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

Lk.16.9 I tell you, use worldly wealth to gain friends for yourselves, so that when it is gone, you will be welcomed into eternal dwellings.

So here we have the same doctrine explicitly taught on three separate occasions, and yet the Church ignores this doctrine as if it does not exist. But there is more. It is not just Jesus' commandments that they ignore - they also ignore James admonitions on the same subject as well:

Ja.1.10-11 But the one who is rich should take pride in his low position, because he will pass away like a wild flower. For the sun rises with scorching heat and withers the plant; its blossom falls and its beauty is destroyed. In the same way, the rich man will fade away even while he goes about his business.

Ja.2.6b-7 Is it not the rich who are exploiting you? Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court? Are they not the ones who are slandering the noble name of him to whom you belong?

Ja.5.1-6 Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming upon you. Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days. Look! The wages you failed to pay the workmen who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty. You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter. You have condemned and murdered innocent men, who were not opposing you.

So here we have a doctrine (riches lead to condemnation) with six separate pieces of Scriptural evidence, and yet the Church ignores it completely. And yet the Church takes a single Scriptural incident and blows its importance up to the point of a ritual, that in fact contradicts the fact that relating to God through rituals (law) was done away with on the cross.

So with all of this scriptural evidence for the doctrine on riches, how can you ignore it while at the same time enacting a ritual based on a nebulous interpretation of one piece of Scriptural evidence?

[Spiritus Naturae]

I hope this 'hand' is full enough. 75 ways to leave your lover, alcohol.

1) Genesis 9:20-26 - Noah became drunk; the result was immorality and family trouble.

2) Genesis 19:30-38 - Lot was so drunk he did not know what he was doing; this led to immorality

3) Leviticus 10:9-11 - God commanded priests not to drink so that they could tell the difference between the holy and the unholy. (Neither can anyone else tell the difference. Certainly, not many even know what the word 'holy' actually means, especially when pertaining to HOLY GOD).

4) Numbers 6:3 - The Nazarites were told to eat or drink nothing from the grape vine.

5) Deuteronomy 21:20 - A drunken son was stubborn and rebellious.

6) Deuteronomy 29:5-6 - God gave no grape juice to Israel nor did they have intoxicating drink in the wilderness.

7) Deuteronomy 32:33 - Intoxicating wine is like the poison of serpents, the cruel venom of asps.

8) Judges 13:4, 7, 14 - Samson was to be a Nazarite for life. His mother was told not to drink wine or strong drink. (I just finished a discusion with some muslims on another board, who claim that our God encourages FAS, by allowing us to drink wine, making his god so much better).

9) 1 Samuel 1:14-15 - Accused, Hannah said she drank no wine.

10) 1 Samuel 25:32-38 - Nabal died after a drunken spree.

11) 2 Samuel 11:13 - By getting Uriah drunk, David hoped to cover his sin.

12) 2 Samuel 13:28-29 - Amnon was drunk when he was killed.

13) 1 Kings 16:8-10 - The king was drinking himself into drunkenness when he was assassinated

14) 1 Kings 20:12-21 - Ben-Hadad and 32 other kings were drinking when they were attacked and defeated by the Israelites.

15) Esther 1:5-12 - The king gave each one all the drink he wanted. The king was intoxicated when he commanded the queen to come.

16) Psalm 75:8 - The Lord’s anger is pictured as mixed wine poured out and drunk by the wicked.

17) Proverbs 4:17 - Alcoholic drink is called the wine of violence.

18) Proverbs 20:1 - Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging.

19) Proverbs 23:19-20 - A wise person will not be among the drinkers of alcoholic beverages.

20) Proverbs 23:21 - Drunkenness causes poverty.

21) Proverbs 23:29-30 - Drinking causes woe, sorrow, fighting, babbling, wounds without cause and red eyes.

22) Proverbs 23:31 - God instructs not to look at intoxicating drinks.

23) Proverbs 23:32 - Alcoholic drinks bite like a serpent, sting like an adder.

24) Proverbs 23:33 - Alcohol causes the drinker to have strange and adulterous thoughts, produces willfulness, and prevents reformation.

25) Proverbs 23:34 - Alcohol makes the drinker unstable

26) Proverbs 23:35 - Alcohol makes the drinker insensitive to pain so he does not perceive it as a warning. Alcohol is habit forming.

27) Proverb 31:4-5 - Kings, Princes, and others who rule and judge must not drink alcohol. Alcohol perverts good judgment.

28) Proverbs 31:6-7 - Strong drink could be given to those about to perish or those in pain. Better anesthetics are available today.

29) Ecclesiastes 2:3 - The king tried everything, including intoxicating drink, to see if it satisfied. It did not. (Ecclesiastes 12:8)

30) Ecclesiastes 10:17 - A land is blessed when its leaders do not drink.

31) Isaiah 5:11-12 - Woe to those who get up early to drink and stay up late at night to get drunk.

32) Isaiah 5:22 - Woe to "champion" drinkers and "experts" at mixing drinks.

33) Isaiah 19:14 - Drunken men stagger in their vomit.

34) Isaiah 22:12-13 - The Israelites choose to drink; their future looks hopeless to them.

35) Isaiah 24:9 - Drinkers cannot escape the consequences when God judges.

36) Isaiah 28:1 - God pronounces woe on the drunkards of Ephraim.

37) Isaiah 28:3 - Proud drunkards shall be trodden down.

38) Isaiah 28:7 - Priests and prophets stagger and reel from beer and wine, err in vision, and stumble in judgment.

39) Isaiah 28:8 - Drinkers’ tables are covered with vomit and filth.

40) Isaiah 56:9-12 - Drinkers seek their own gain and expect tomorrow to be just like today.

41) Jeremiah 35:2-14 - The Rechabites drank no grape juice or intoxicating wine and were blessed.

42) Ezekiel 44:21 - Again God instructed the priests not to drink wine.

43) Daniel 1:5-17 - Daniel refused the king’s intoxicating wine and was blessed for it along with his abstaining friends.

44) Daniel 5:1 - Belshazzar, ruler of Babylon; led his people in drinking.

45) Daniel 5:2-3 - The king, along with his nobles, wives, and concubines, drank from the goblets which had been taken from God’s temple.

46) Daniel 5:4 - Drinking wine was combined with praising false gods.

47) Daniel 5:23 - God sent word to Belshazzar that punishment would be swift for the evil he had committed.

48) Hosea 4:11 - Intoxicating wine takes away intelligence.

49) Hosea 7:5 - God reproves princes for drinking.

50) Joel 1:5 - Drunkards awake to see God’s judgment.

51) Joel 3:3 - The enemy is judged for selling girls for wine.

52) Amos 2:8 - Unrighteous acts of Israel included the drinking of wine which had been taken for the payment of fines.

53) Amos 2:12 - Israel is condemned for forcing Nazarites to drink wine.

54) Micah 2:11 - Israelites are eager to follow false teachers who prophesy plenty of intoxicating drinks.

55) Nahum 1:10 - The drunkards of Nineveh will be destroyed by God.

56) Habakkuk 2:5 - A man is betrayed by wine.

57) Habakkuk 2:15 - Woe to him that gives his neighbor drink.

58) Habakkuk 2:16 - Drinking leads to shame.

59) Matthew 24:48-51 - A drinking servant is unprepared for his Lord’s return.

60) Luke 1:15 - John the Baptist drank neither grape juice nor wine.

61) Luke 12:45 - Christ warned against drunkenness.

62) Luke 21:34 - Drunkenness will cause a person not to be ready for the Lord’s return.

63) Romans 13:13 - Do not walk in drunkenness or immorality.

64) Romans 14:21 - Do not do anything that will hurt your testimony as a believer.

65) 1 Corinthians 5:11 - If a Christian brother is a drinker, do not associate with him.

66) 1 Corinthians 6:10 - Drunkards will not inherit the kingdom of God

67) Galatians 5:21 - Acts of the sinful nature, such as drunkenness, will prohibit a person from inheriting the kingdom of God.

68) Ephesians 5:18 - In contrast to being drunk with wine, the believer is to be filled with the Spirit.

69) 1 Thessalonians 5:6-7 - Christians are to be alert and self-controlled, belonging to the day. Drunkards belong to the night and darkness.

70) 1 Timothy 3:2-3 - Bishops (elders) are to be temperate, sober, and not near any wine.

71) 1 Timothy 3:8 - Deacons are to be worthy of respect and not drinkers.

72) 1 Timothy 3:11 - Deacons’ wives are to be temperate and sober.

73) Titus 1:7-8 - An overseer is to be disciplined.

74) Titus 2:2-3 - The older men and older women of the church are to be temperate and not addicted to wine.

75) 1 Peter 4:3-4 - The past life of drunkenness and carousing has no place in the Christian’s life.


A rejoinder might be......'well, I'm not talking about getting drunk'
A rejoinder might be......'well, is a little bit of sin like a little bit of cancer or a little bit of alcohol, or a little bit of poison?

What starts with 'a little bit'?

My own hang-up, Pilgrim, is the perplexity that a little bit of evil is a good thing.

Problem is Redwolf, alcohol in and of itself is not evil. All those scripture you listed speak of abuses of alcohol and a 'wanton' lifestyle. All of them referring to 'behaviours'. I notice you didnt list any of the Scripture that portray wine in a 'positive' light. We need to have a well-rounded and contextual understanding of Scripture in order to properly ascertain whether or not our personal prejudices and traditions are actually Biblically validated. You believe alcohol to be evil. I, for instance, believe that my past behaviour was evil, that is the abuse of alcohol ( I have been sober 8 years now, thanks be to God). However, the substance itself was not evil but rather my abuse of it.

It is important that we take responsibility for our actions, our sin and not seek to place blame where there is none. Do you see the difference?

[Arnold]

Saying we shouldn't come together to perform Eucharist is like saying we shouldn't come together to celebrate Easter, or meet on Sundays.

Nonsense. Instead of performing a ritual that does no good for anyone that a personal prayer could not do, why not do what the early Church did instead - have a Lord's Supper? Corinthians illustrates that it was a community meal for the purpose of fellowship, not a ritual of a bite of bread and a sip of wine or grape juice, while reciting rote, meaningless words.

[Spiritus Naturae]

Here is some intellectual dishonesty for you.

Rev. Henry Homes, an American missionary to Constantinople, in his article on wine published in the Bibliotheca Sacra (May 1848) gives this account of his observations: "Simple grape-juice, without the addition of any earth to neutralize the acidity, is boiled from four to five hours, so as to reduce it one-fourth the quantity put in. After the boiling, for preserving it cool, and that it be less liable to ferment, it is put into earthen instead of wooden vessels, closely tied over with skin to exclude the air. It ordinarily has not a particle of intoxicating quality, being used freely by both Mohammedans and Christians. Some which I have had on hand for two years has undergone no change."49

http://www2.andrews.edu/~samuele/books/wine_in_the_bible/3.html

Or find your own source that outlines the process of keeping grapes from spoiling. The net is replete with this information.

I saw this book cited in your earlier post. I'll be sure and check it out, although I hope he cites heavily his sources so that I may verify, as it seems he may have approached the subject with an agenda already in mind. Not to mention that ,sadly enough, it is endorsed by that spiritual whack-a-doo, Norman Vincent Peale, Mr. Positive Thinking, Word of Faith himself. I'll have to take it with a grain of salt, but will check it out nonetheless.

[Redwolf]

I saw this book cited in your earlier post. I'll be sure and check it out, although I hope he cites heavily his sources so that I may verify, as it seems he may have approached the subject with an agenda already in mind. Not to mention that ,sadly enough, it is endorsed by that spiritual whack-a-doo, Norman Vincent Peale, Mr. Positive Thinking, Word of Faith himself. I'll have to take it with a grain of salt, but will check it out nonetheless.


Paul appealing
Peale appalling

That would be the Apostle Paul.

(I've searched the world over, and cannot find the button that let's me log out of this website. I feel imprisoned [lol]. Can you lead me to it? Thank you. I'm new!).

[Cynic Sage]

Paul appealing
Peale appalling

That would be the Apostle Paul.

(I've searched the world over, and cannot find the button that let's me log out of this website. I feel imprisoned [lol]. Can you lead me to it? Thank you. I'm new!).

Right under the graphic at the top that says: "We debate theology, seriously."

[Pilgrim]

Again - I have never talked about this as a salvation issue. Why do you keep bringing this up?

The problem with accepting what Jesus did in the upper room as an institution of a ritual is that there is no other corroborating Scripture to support this interpretation. There is no example of this ritual done by the Church, and the Lord's Supper portrayed in Corinthians does not resemble this ritual at all. The Church has taken one piece of Scripture and extrapolated out of it a ritual that goes way beyond the importance Scripture places on it. This is no way to understand Scripture. It is not up to the Church to determine the importance of doctrine, rather the Scriptures illustrate their own importance through the evidence they provide.

I will give you another example of where the Church has placed its own hierarchy of doctrine over that of Scripture. Much of the Church insists we must obey Christ's commandments. But I can show you a doctrine that is completely ignored even though there is a multitude of scriptural evidence to support it:

Mt.19.21 Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven.

Lk.12.32-34 "Do not be afraid, little flock, for your Father has been pleased to give you the kingdom. Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will not be exhausted, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

Lk.16.9 I tell you, use worldly wealth to gain friends for yourselves, so that when it is gone, you will be welcomed into eternal dwellings.

So here we have the same doctrine explicitly taught on three separate occasions, and yet the Church ignores this doctrine as if it does not exist. But there is more. It is not just Jesus' commandments that they ignore - they also ignore James admonitions on the same subject as well:

Ja.1.10-11 But the one who is rich should take pride in his low position, because he will pass away like a wild flower. For the sun rises with scorching heat and withers the plant; its blossom falls and its beauty is destroyed. In the same way, the rich man will fade away even while he goes about his business.

Ja.2.6b-7 Is it not the rich who are exploiting you? Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court? Are they not the ones who are slandering the noble name of him to whom you belong?

Ja.5.1-6 Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming upon you. Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days. Look! The wages you failed to pay the workmen who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty. You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter. You have condemned and murdered innocent men, who were not opposing you.

So here we have a doctrine (riches lead to condemnation) with six separate pieces of Scriptural evidence, and yet the Church ignores it completely. And yet the Church takes a single Scriptural incident and blows its importance up to the point of a ritual, that in fact contradicts the fact that relating to God through rituals (law) was done away with on the cross.

So with all of this scriptural evidence for the doctrine on riches, how can you ignore it while at the same time enacting a ritual based on a nebulous interpretation of one piece of Scriptural evidence?
I guess the issue is that you assume all the churches are ignoring the issue of riches.

[Arnold]

I guess the issue is that you assume all the churches are ignoring the issue of riches.

The point is that the Church picks and chooses what it considers important over what Scripture considers important. There is no scriptural corroboration to support the nebulous interpretation of a ritual of communion, yet the Church has no problem enacting this ritual. But do they pay attention to the multiple corroborations on the doctrine of riches? No they ignore it. I can understand the RCC doing this to a certain extent - at least they have the gonads to admit that they think the Church has the authority to ignore what Scripture says and implement pretty much whatever they feel should be Church doctrine. But I thought the Protestant/Evangelical churches espoused Scripture as supreme.

And here's a couple of more questions for you:

If the communion is universal in institution why would John not include it in his Gospel? Why would he omit what is supposed to be important to every Christian?

And why was it not included in the two requirements of the council of Acts 15? This was where the young Church made a final decision on keeping the law and what rules should be kept. But not even a mention of communion.

Communion as a ritual just cannot be supported through Scripture. It is simply an invention of the Church.

[Pilgrim]

The point is that the Church picks and chooses what it considers important over what Scripture considers important. There is no scriptural corroboration to support the nebulous interpretation of a ritual of communion, yet the Church has no problem enacting this ritual. But do they pay attention to the multiple corroborations on the doctrine of riches? No they ignore it. I can understand the RCC doing this to a certain extent - at least they have the gonads to admit that they think the Church has the authority to ignore what Scripture says and implement pretty much whatever they feel should be Church doctrine. But I thought the Protestant/Evangelical churches espoused Scripture as supreme.

And here's a couple of more questions for you:

If the communion is universal in institution why would John not include it in his Gospel? Why would he omit what is supposed to be important to every Christian?

And why was it not included in the two requirements of the council of Acts 15? This was where the young Church made a final decision on keeping the law and what rules should be kept. But not even a mention of communion.

Communion as a ritual just cannot be supported through Scripture. It is simply an invention of the Church.
Interesting opinion but I have to ask, "so what?" There's no support at allin scripture for you to be talking about the gospel via the internet, so where's that leave you?

If some Christians have found special significance in remembering the encouragement "to do this in rememberance of me" that came from the very lips of Christ himself, then that is well and good. Unless you are suggesting perhaps that Christ never said those things? That the gospel writer made it up?

I mean, you take very seriously the teachings against homosexuality and you want to enforce it even to the point of making it a civic rule in general applying it beyond the bounds of the church. And yet, if that is so all fired important, why is it mentioned so few times in scripture?

And again your analogy of the teaching on riches falls short because you have assumed that churches are ignoring it. That is not the case universally. It feels to me as if you are simply pounding a personal preference into some sort of doctrine to be applied to everyone and a preference that is a nit pic at that.

[Arnold]

Interesting opinion but I have to ask, "so what?" There's no support at allin scripture for you to be talking about the gospel via the internet, so where's that leave you?

But I don't do this to relate to God or as a ritual.

If some Christians have found special significance in remembering the encouragement "to do this in rememberance of me" that came from the very lips of Christ himself, then that is well and good. Unless you are suggesting perhaps that Christ never said those things? That the gospel writer made it up?

It is a glaring example of the Church ignoring Scripture and applying lies to truth. Relating to God through ritual (law) was abolished at the cross. Communion is a denial of this truth.

I mean, you take very seriously the teachings against homosexuality and you want to enforce it even to the point of making it a civic rule in general applying it beyond the bounds of the church. And yet, if that is so all fired important, why is it mentioned so few times in scripture?

I have never mentioned Scripture in regard to the homosexual issue. My objection has always been that is detrimental and dangerous to the individual, the family and society at large by the effects of it. So let's not get off topic here.

And again your analogy of the teaching on riches falls short because you have assumed that churches are ignoring it. That is not the case universally. It feels to me as if you are simply pounding a personal preference into some sort of doctrine to be applied to everyone and a preference that is a nit pic at that.


Oh really? Did you sell all of your belongings and give them to the poor? Do you teach others to do so? Do you preach that those who are rich are in danger of forfeiting their opportunity at salvation as James insists over and over? Are you aware that Christ commanded to give to those who ask? Would you obey His commandment and give me your computer if I asked? Or your car? Your savings? Your house?

You willingly support that which denies the cross and is unsupported in Scripture, but do you do what your Lord COMMANDS?

[Cynic Sage]

You willingly support that which denies the cross and is unsupported in Scripture, but do you do what your Lord COMMANDS?

I'm only going to say this once. Please forgive me if I sound somewhat angry.

:attn:ARNOLD YOU TWIT! COMMUNION DOES NOT DENY THE CROSS, WE CELEBRATE COMMUNION TO REMEMBER THE CROSS! IT IS NOT ABOUT "RELATING TO GOD THROUGH RITUAL" BUT REMEMBERING CHRIST'S SACRIFICE!

[Redwolf]

Nonsense. Instead of performing a ritual that does no good for anyone that a personal prayer could not do, why not do what the early Church did instead - have a Lord's Supper? Corinthians illustrates that it was a community meal for the purpose of fellowship, not a ritual of a bite of bread and a sip of wine or grape juice, while reciting rote, meaningless words.


When Christ told his disciples 'do this in remembrance of me' (meaning bread, wine, washing of feet), he suggested it be done often. This is where the word 'ritual' comes in, a word that has negative and POSITIVE connotations.
Ritual, rite, habitually, and so on.......

Webster Definition for "ritual"

1. rit.u.al \' rich-(*-)w*l, ' rich-*l\ \-e-\ aj 1: of or relating to rites 2: forming a ritual - rit.u.al.ly av

2. ritual n 1: the established form for a ceremony; specif : the order of words prescribed for a religious ceremony 2a: ritual observance; specif : a system of rites 2b: a ceremonial act or action 2c: any formal and customarily repeated act or series of acts


Rite
The act of performing divine or solemn service, as established by law, precept, or custom; a formal act of religion or other solemn duty; a solemn observance; a ceremony;


One entry found for habitual.
Main Entry: ha·bit·u·al
Pronunciation: h&-'bi-ch(&-)w&l, ha-, -'bi-ch&l
Function: adjective
1 : having the nature of a habit : being in accordance with habit : CUSTOMARY
2 : doing, practicing, or acting in some manner by force of habit
3 : resorted to on a regular basis <our habitual diet>
4 : inherent in an individual <habitual grace>
synonym see USUAL
- ha·bit·u·al·ly adverb
- ha·bit·u·al·ness noun

There is nothing wrong with using the word ritual, rite, habitual in connection with the Lord's Supper. Those words are logical in application, since the performance of that rite is the same always. :sigh:

[Arnold]

Johnny EC and Redwolf

How convenient for both of you to completely ignore all of the evidence I have presented, answer none of my questions, present no scriptural evidence of your own, and simply insist that your nebulous interpretation must stand without the necessity of any corrobative Scripture.

It speaks volumes about how you approach Scripture.

[Redwolf]

Johnny EC and Redwolf

How convenient for both of you to completely ignore all of the evidence I have presented, answer none of my questions, present no scriptural evidence of your own, and simply insist that your nebulous interpretation must stand without the necessity of any corrobative Scripture.

It speaks volumes about how you approach Scripture.


Arnold, if you are happy with what you think you know, then stay happy.

[Arnold]

Arnold, if you are happy with what you think you know, then stay happy.

Oh well, forgive me for thinking you might be interested in a discussion. And it is not about what I think I know - that seems to be your postion. But I suppose we have nothing to discuss, since I'm talking scriptural doctrine and you are stuck in religious dogma.

[Arnold]

Oh look at that - I hadn't noticed this before; Luke is the only Gospel that actually records that Jesus said, "do this in remembrance of me." I guess the authors of the other Gospels didn't think it was important to inform their readers of the importance of this so-called ritual that the Church seems to think everyone should practice.

[Redwolf]

Oh look at that - I hadn't noticed this before; Luke is the only Gospel that actually records that Jesus said, "do this in remembrance of me." I guess the authors of the other Gospels didn't think it was important to inform their readers of the importance of this so-called ritual that the Church seems to think everyone should practice.


Hi, Arnold. Are you sure you want to be sarcastic with God's word? Luke is also the only one who records the "Christmas Story" in detail. That does not negate the recording of Christ's birth elsewhere, or that He was born.
The author of the Gospels and all scripture is Christ, who uses people as He finds them -
Be of good courage, Arnold, Christ makes no mistakes.

[Pilgrim]

I have never mentioned Scripture in regard to the homosexual issue. My objection has always been that is detrimental and dangerous to the individual, the family and society at large by the effects of it. So let's not get off topic here.

Oh, I hadn't realized you thought scripture gave homosexuality the thumbs up. Cool.

Oh really? Did you sell all of your belongings and give them to the poor? Do you teach others to do so? Do you preach that those who are rich are in danger of forfeiting their opportunity at salvation as James insists over and over? Are you aware that Christ commanded to give to those who ask? Would you obey His commandment and give me your computer if I asked? Or your car? Your savings? Your house?

I have not sold all I have though I live very modestly being a preacher I don't earn a whole lot. Be that as it may, I am not the rich young ruler and money is not me personal barrier. I think you need to think about context. To the other questions, yes, I do teach those things. As to your question about giving to those who ask, if you asked for my computer or car you would be so far out of the context of that scripture that I would have to assume that you were no better than a televangelist huckster looking to bilk the faithful.

You willingly support that which denies the cross and is unsupported in Scripture, but do you do what your Lord COMMANDS?

I'm not sure what you are talking about? what is this thing "which denies the cross" that you are talking about?

[Arnold]

Hi, Arnold. Are you sure you want to be sarcastic with God's word?

What sarcasm? My statement is meant to be taken straight up.

Luke is also the only one who records the "Christmas Story" in detail. That does not negate the recording of Christ's birth elsewhere, or that He was born.

It is the contention that Christ COMMANDED this so-called Communion ritual to be kept. Are you now saying that Christ commanded that Christmas be kept as well? If not, your comparison is meaningless.

The author of the Gospels and all scripture is Christ, who uses people as He finds them -

So if Christ commanded the Church to follow this ritual why would He leave out that very command from three of the four Gospels (and why did the council of Acts 15 leave it out of the two requirements)? These three Gospels were written to three different groups of people. Why would He not wish to inform them of this ritual requirement? Luke's Gospel was not even written for general consumption - it was a private letter to one individual.

Be of good courage, Arnold, Christ makes no mistakes.

Why don't lay off these sanctimonious little lecture statements and address the issues and questions I have raised throughout this thread?

[Arnold]

Oh, I hadn't realized you thought scripture gave homosexuality the thumbs up. Cool.

I did not comment on what Scripture says.

I have not sold all I have though I live very modestly being a preacher I don't earn a whole lot. Be that as it may, I am not the rich young ruler and money is not me personal barrier.

Christ commanded this for everyone. You are not exempt because you are not the rich young ruler.

I think you need to think about context.

Perhaps you should as well. The council of Acts 15 was for determining the requirements of practicing being a Christian - they did not include Communion. And Paul describes the Lord's Supper (the only time it is mentioned) in Corinthians as a community meal for the purposes of fellowship, evangelization and feeding the poor.

To the other questions, yes, I do teach those things.

You actually preach to the rich in your parish to give enough away so that they are no longer rich?

As to your question about giving to those who ask, if you asked for my computer or car you would be so far out of the context of that scripture that I would have to assume that you were no better than a televangelist huckster looking to bilk the faithful.

The question is not about my motive (I could be giving them to the poor). The question is whether you will obey a clear command of Christ, seeing that you insist we must obey this nebulous ritual interpretation of the command of Christ in the upper room.

I'm not sure what you are talking about? what is this thing "which denies the cross" that you are talking about?

See Acts 15. The law (and rituals) were abolished for the Church. Paul tells us they were nailed to the cross. We no longer are to relate to God through rituals (law).

[Cynic Sage]

Arnold, here's some material you might be interested in: http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nekkid.html



o Luke 6:29-30 and Matthew 5:42 oblige us to give away all our stuff to anyone who asks?
I get questions at times that make me wonder if some skeptics out there are on drugs. Here's the passages under consideration:

And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloak forbid not to take thy coat also. Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again.Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.I read once about Jewish "anti-missionaries" who these this passage around, and suckered some Christians into giving away clothes, Bibles, and so on...wish I'd been there, because in honor of this verse's context, you bet I'd give to anyone who "tooketh" away my stuff -- and then, I'd call the police.

Let's start with the Lukan passage. One thing to keep in mind here is that in the first century, if someone larger and stronger, or with a bigger club, took away your stuff, there wasn't a whole lot you could do about it -- and you couldn't dial 911 (or would it be, with the Romans, IX-I-I?) and have the cops come over and fill out a crime report, then go out and put the crook in the slammer. The Romans were too busy and/or apathetic to address such matters as petty crimes among the commoners (they were mainly concerned with protecting the rich and stopping rebellion and riots), and even if the sheriff was around, chances are that whoever it was who robbed you was some sort of bandit in the wilderness who knew how to make a clean (?) getaway. You might have some luck with the Sanhedrin, of course, but even these guys, if you were poor, were likely to reply to you with no more than a contemptuous sniff (as in the story of the unrighteous judge). Not even McGruff could take a bite out of crime in this day and age.

Now perhaps you could fight back, of course; or you could go find the crook (good luck!) and either haul him to the authorities yourself, or demand your stuff back ("ask" here carries the sense of demanding; more likely you're demanding your stuff back right after it is taken); and of course you'd start a fight in the process...and that's the point, and why Luke paired this saying with the one about the personal offense of cheek-smiting -- the point here is, don't escalate the violence. And that's the way a believer would have to do it, since there was no proper way for justice to be administered -- the only authorities around didn't care or weren't likely to be much help even if they did!

Today, of course, we have police and the courts to deliver God's justice; this passage speaks to us today against taking the law into our own hands and against vigilantism. I would say as well that it does not forbid self-defense if you are able to fight the crook off -- the point is, let justice rest in the hands of those with whom it is invested by God (Rom. 7).

...

[Redwolf]

What sarcasm? My statement is meant to be taken straight up.



It is the contention that Christ COMMANDED this so-called Communion ritual to be kept. Are you now saying that Christ commanded that Christmas be kept as well? If not, your comparison is meaningless.



So if Christ commanded the Church to follow this ritual why would He leave out that very command from three of the four Gospels (and why did the council of Acts 15 leave it out of the two requirements)? These three Gospels were written to three different groups of people. Why would He not wish to inform them of this ritual requirement? Luke's Gospel was not even written for general consumption - it was a private letter to one individual.



Why don't lay off these sanctimonious little lecture statements and address the issues and questions I have raised throughout this thread?




Have it your way, Arnold, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickels, onions, on a sesame seed bun, and a nice chianti.

Discerning of spirits, is one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, and I am discerning yours. People always tell you who they are. I guess you told me, eh? :eww:

[Arnold]

Have it your way, Arnold, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickels, onions, on a sesame seed bun, and a nice chianti.

Discerning of spirits, is one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, and I am discerning yours. People always tell you who they are. I guess you told me, eh? http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/images/smilies/eww.gif

And I am figuring yours out real quick myself.

First you post the definition of the word ritual as if that explains everything, when it actually explains nothing. And when I ignore your be-all and end-all answer you come backwith your first little sanctimonious lecture statement:

"Arnold, if you are happy with what you think you know, then stay happy."

Then you come up with this sarcasm statement which tells me you have very poor literary comprehension. And then there was your second little sanctimonious lecture statement:

"Be of good courage, Arnold, Christ makes no mistakes."

And now you come back with mocking:

"Have it your way, Arnold, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickels, onions, on a sesame seed bun, and a nice chianti."

All the while you refuse to deal with any of my scriptural evidence or questions.

I've certainly discerned your spirit...

[Arnold]

Arnold, here's some material you might be interested in: http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nekkid.html



o Luke 6:29-30 and Matthew 5:42 oblige us to give away all our stuff to anyone who asks?
I get questions at times that make me wonder if some skeptics out there are on drugs. Here's the passages under consideration:


And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloak forbid not to take thy coat also. Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again.Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.I read once about Jewish "anti-missionaries" who these this passage around, and suckered some Christians into giving away clothes, Bibles, and so on...wish I'd been there, because in honor of this verse's context, you bet I'd give to anyone who "tooketh" away my stuff -- and then, I'd call the police.


Let's start with the Lukan passage. One thing to keep in mind here is that in the first century, if someone larger and stronger, or with a bigger club, took away your stuff, there wasn't a whole lot you could do about it -- and you couldn't dial 911 (or would it be, with the Romans, IX-I-I?) and have the cops come over and fill out a crime report, then go out and put the crook in the slammer. The Romans were too busy and/or apathetic to address such matters as petty crimes among the commoners (they were mainly concerned with protecting the rich and stopping rebellion and riots), and even if the sheriff was around, chances are that whoever it was who robbed you was some sort of bandit in the wilderness who knew how to make a clean (?) getaway. You might have some luck with the Sanhedrin, of course, but even these guys, if you were poor, were likely to reply to you with no more than a contemptuous sniff (as in the story of the unrighteous judge). Not even McGruff could take a bite out of crime in this day and age.

Now perhaps you could fight back, of course; or you could go find the crook (good luck!) and either haul him to the authorities yourself, or demand your stuff back ("ask" here carries the sense of demanding; more likely you're demanding your stuff back right after it is taken); and of course you'd start a fight in the process...and that's the point, and why Luke paired this saying with the one about the personal offense of cheek-smiting -- the point here is, don't escalate the violence. And that's the way a believer would have to do it, since there was no proper way for justice to be administered -- the only authorities around didn't care or weren't likely to be much help even if they did!

Today, of course, we have police and the courts to deliver God's justice; this passage speaks to us today against taking the law into our own hands and against vigilantism. I would say as well that it does not forbid self-defense if you are able to fight the crook off -- the point is, let justice rest in the hands of those with whom it is invested by God (Rom. 7).

...



Johnny EC you are obviously not intelligent enough (or old enough) to understand the point I am making. So why don't you just run along and play in your Screwball thread sandbox...

[Arnold]

Pilgrim, thanks for the discussion - you were a worthy opponent. But I am tired of the sniping from the punks on the sidelines. I don't want to continue this discussion. Bye.

[Redwolf]

And I am figuring yours out real quick myself.

First you post the definition of the word ritual as if that explains everything, when it actually explains nothing. And when I ignore your be-all and end-all answer you come backwith your first little sanctimonious lecture statement:

"Arnold, if you are happy with what you think you know, then stay happy."

Then you come up with this sarcasm statement which tells me you have very poor literary comprehension. And then there was your second little sanctimonious lecture statement:

"Be of good courage, Arnold, Christ makes no mistakes."

And now you come back with mocking:

"Have it your way, Arnold, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickels, onions, on a sesame seed bun, and a nice chianti."

All the while you refuse to deal with any of my scriptural evidence or questions.

I've certainly discerned your spirit...



I meant everything straight up, Arnold, and gave you the correct definition for ritual, but will not buy your interpretation of scripture and what you call 'evidence'.

It's your way or the wrong way. I'll not have it your way.

Christ did away with the ritual of the ceremonial/sacrificial law. This law/ritual/ceremony was an absolute necessity, since it pointed to the ultimate sacrifice..........his sacrifice. When his sacrifice was made, this ceremony was no longer necessary, but in no way was it ever a bad thing.

That leaves the question - exactly what ritual do you find offensive? The one I just mentioned was instituted and finished by Christ. No offense should be taken here.

I am not answering another post by you. You have earned that - hands down. :flowers:

[Cynic Sage]

Well, this thread turned out to be a big bowl of extra-crunchy viritol.:frown: