Servant54

Which continues to demonstrate your lack of competence where biblical languages are concerned. "New wine" was not nonalchololic. None of those passages indicate that wine was not the intended understanding. Winepresses and vineyards were used for ONE purpose in an agriculturally based society. The juice of the grapes were intended for wine. It was a major agricultural crop. The juice was considered "wine" since that was the intent of the grower and the producer. Ok great..now back up this statement with historical proof..this is not "language" aligation you make, but a historical one what do you do with New wine in clusters? Alcoholic? Prov 3:10 presses bursting with new wine Alcoholic? They did not have Welches or Juicy Juice in those days. Yes, they did and this has already been proven by historical statements on this thread, they had preserved thick juice..non alcoholic and they called it oinios which is transliterated yayin in Hebrew. We provide much on this and there is much more proof. Again not a language issue. When the Bible juxtaposes a lack of joy with a lack of abundance of the fruit of the vine, it is a clear reference to wine. It is wine, not simply "grape juice" that the Bible associates allegorically to fullness of joy. You just don't get that from plain, unfermented grape juice. In Judges 9:27 it says "they gathered grapes from the vineyards and trod them and MADE MERRY." ......"they ate and drank and cursed Abimelech"Fourteen verses back it says "But the vine says to them "Should I cease my NEW WINE Which CHEERS both God and men? Now God drinks alcohol? I say it would be pretty easy to see they drank the grape juice they trod and made merry with it and that the new wine spoken of here is just grape juice. Here is my proof where is yours..again not a language issue Jesus drank fermented wine and the Bible could not be more clear on that point. He even made it for others to drink on one occasion. I cannot imagine one biblical doctrine that is threatened by that simple dose of reality. Again, you make assertions with NO proof have you read Hab 2:15 Who who gives drink to his neighbor, Jesus did not break this commandment . This is not a language issue. Studying the wine skins in the gospel which wine was Jesus associated with the new or the old? What did the old typify?Why did they prefer old? Would he not make new wine typifying his teaching as an opener to his teaching ministry? That is not what it says. It says that the children ask their mothers where the wine and grain is. It does not say the lack of wine made them faint. Secondly there is nothing in that verse to indicate a nonalcoholic beverage is being referenced. It is used in the natural sense. Again you absolutely are totally wrong in both statements, read on... verse19 who faint from hunger..4:4 The young ask for bread, no one breaks it..4:9better off then those who die of hunger, for these pine away, stricken for lack of the FRUIT OF THE FIELD In other words, you can't refute what was presented. Done

I think everyone is trying to side track the issue. I brought up the Jews AFTER every one was speaking about them as to the fact we should copy them because they drink alcoholic wine at Passover. I said they are not someone we should copy. I was qualifying that statement when I said what I said. Lets just leave it at that. I will retract the statement that they are "Christ haters", I meant it in a certain fashion anyway and should not have brought it up had I known it would cause such a stir. I am sorry if I offended anyone. That was not my intent.

Yes, it is all me

Actually, that's not true. Explain. Look at the very first word in that verse. "IF" the world hates...... Not knowing Christ does not translate into hating Him. Yes, I see what you are saying, it does go on beyond that and says the world loves its own and hates you because you are not of the world. My main point is you are either for Christ or against him....people against Christ are not the apple of God's eye. Abraham was for Christ by faith. Therefor he was the apple of God's eye. Again I have to tread on water here lest I say something a little off and then get immediately branded as a heretic so everyone can breath easy because Servant 54 is loonie and we no longer have to listen to him. I do not buy it. I am trying to be as kind as possible and just bring the facts of the topic. I wish everyone would quite with the side comments and just stick to the topic.

Actually, that's not true. Explain.

yes, but notice that every instance refers to the grapes still on the vine or newly harvested...none of those examples have aged at all. but after a few days, new wine ferments into just "wine" Why would they grow grapes if they could only drink them for about a week after the harvest? I am not following where you come up with your idea, you might want to reread my post. "The children call out for it" how do you know how old it is? Did you go in the cupboard and get down the 6 month old jam like I suggested and mix hot water with it? We have long ago with many texts of history proved they had juice all year long..but if you want to continue insisting they did not then we will add that to the arguments to your side of the discussion. Thank You.

"Christ haters" is a racist term, friend. This and "Christ killers" were terms used by the Nazis as justification for the wholesale slaughter of 6 million men, women and children. This is wrong theology. Israel is Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; children of Abraham by blood and heritage. We are the children of Abrham by faith, having been grafted into Israel. God's promise to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob has never been dissolved or eliminated. Your theology makes God a hypocrite! "For the LORD's portion is his people, Jacob his allotted heritage. "He found him in a desert land, and in the howling waste of the wilderness; he encircled him, he cared for him, he kept him as the apple of his eye." (Deut. 32:9-10) Your response is completely unbiblical. Actually now I'm going to ignore your argument completely, due to your terrible insult to God and His people. You are right about one thing, though: God is not finished with Israel. Just as He is not done with you... "Christ Haters" Hey, I am just quoting the bible... Jn 15:18 "If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you. (everyone not saved(the world) is a Christ hater in this respect) Anyway, I am not going to side track on the Israel stuff, I can see you hold dear to your belief and I can respect that..just realize some like myself oppose your view and respect that. Hey before you leave me are you going to comment on what we were actually talking about the text,,I mean it would look like you picked a fight to avoid it if you don't.

Shiloh said.. "Yayin can refer to any fruit of the vine, but when it is translated as "wine" it is for good reason. The natural context determines how a word is used and is translated. When the Bible refers to wine, it means "wine" not grape juice. You can kick against the goads all you want, but Ovedya is right and every competent scholar in Hebrew will agree with him." I say... Perhaps you can explain the following scriptures in light of what you just said.. Here are some scripture which talk about wine not being alcoholic... Isaiah 65;8 speaks of wine in clusters (tiyrosh) Isaiah 16;10 speaks of treading wine in presses (yayin) Pro 3;10 presses burst with new wine (tiyrosh) Jeremiah 48:33 here wine(yayin) fails from the winepresses Lamentations 2 :11-12 children and infants faint because of lack of wine (yayin) and grain Zech9:14 grain shall make the young men thrive, new wine makes the young women thrive (tiyrosh) So we see that although there are bible passages that obviously refer to wine as having an alcoholic nature, there are also scriptures showing that wine and new wine can also be non alcoholic. The rest of your post I am going to let stand as you have stated it. It looks to me that you say things are the way they are because you believe they are that way. Nothing wrong with that, I see no proof given in other words. Thank you for your time answering me back and God Bless you this week.

Saved people are God\'s people in my theology. Israel\'s people are not saved, unless they have come to know their messiah. They are Christ haters for the most part,not for Him but against Him, go up to some Jew and ask them what they think of your Jesus. Now that does not mean we do not love them as people or side with them because they believe in a democratic way, but they have rejected God. They do have some things God is going to do for them and he has kept them...but they are not saved..they are backslid as a people. We are of our father Abraham will not get you into heaven. Israel is not the apple of God's eye..devoted Christians are. You can not be unsaved and the apple of God's eye totally wrong theology. :::::::::::::::: Did you get any of the "fruit of the vine" understanding or are you just going to ignore it? I notice you totally have jumped topic and are now just criticizing me for proving less than others. Please just stay with the topic.

The word in Dueteronomy is a generic word shakar for strong drink. Guess what the word for sugar is in neighboring Arabic countries shukkar, sound familiar? http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=56507 I also asked an Arab man at the grocery store last mionth. He confirmed this. I am going to bring out much more on Shakar and once and for all show it can be used as a non alcoholic drink rendering the notion God put a stamp of approval on drinking in Duet 14:26 I am way past my coffee/ post time today though..later.

They? what are you saying..anyway I agree with your definition thank you!

I am talking about only the last supper...that was the topic....... International Standard Version (

What are you talking about? I have lost tract. I'm talking about the fact that if sources agree with you, you use them and they are just fine, if not, then you say the sources are "poor," "wrong," "mis-translated," or some other such term. Just to refresh your memory: Post #476: When posting sripture here, I usually use the NIV. Not because it is the best translation, or because it is my favorite, but because it is the simplest for most people to understand. The NIV is not a paraphrase, it is a dynamic equivalency translation. You tell me to check the greek, and when I do, and when it disagrees with what you say, suddenly, not only the NIV is wrong, my source for the greek is wrong too: Post #488: I wasn't using "commentaries" I was using word dictionaries such as Strong's, Thayer's, and other lexicons. I have no clue what you mean by "out-dated sect." You then go on to say that both the KJV AND Strong's are wrong, but apparently, only when they disagree with what you say. You have said earlier that you are not a Bible scholar, but feel that you are enough of a scholar to say that all the interpreters of the KJV where wrong. Ok. Then you call "paroinos" one word in some places, two words in another. Every interlinear I have looked up for both 1 Timothy and Titus give it as one word, and translated the same in both instances as "given to wine" not "beside" and "wine" as you keep asserting. Then once again, you call sources that don't agree with you "poor." But this is the one that concerns me the most: Post #529: Do you actually believe in a works-based faith and salvation? If so, that would explain why you are confused on this issue. We are not saved by works, and works do not produce faith, or earn us anything. When people have a skewed view of something, it's usually traced to 1 of 4 things. A wrong view of who Jesus is, a wrong view of who the Holy Spirit is, a wrong view of the Bible, i.e. not believing in the Bible as divinely inspired and innerant, or a flawed view of salvation. If your view of salvation is that it is works-based, you are going to have a hard time understanding sin, because you will believe that you can conquer sin through works instead of simply accepting Christ's sacrifice on the cross. That will create all kinds of problems and false beliefs. No I do not have a works based faith I was mocking your mock when you said we did. You try slamming people's character because they believe different. It is a cheap shot. You did not stick with the original meaning of the word you went to people's OPINION of what the word meant. Even after Ax came in and reiterated my point you still hold to ideology that these OPINIONS are better than the actual meaning. Word dictionaries are commentaries...especially when they use words to describe Greek words that are not in the text. I will take the blame for not making it clear I was mocking your mock, but please go ask a couple guys who are neutral on this point and I am sure they will tell you that you error on this point of accepting a long flowery meaning over just the simple meaning "along side of wine" Thank you for all your work in your posts..you have brought many good points to the debate.

If we can not say Timothy was a pastor because the bible does not directly say so then we can not say that alcoholic wine was used at the last supper. Fruit was used..fruit of the vine. Oh and they had that fruit in condensed form Maybe, I am not denying the possibility. I am just saying that historically and what we know about historical Jewish tradition the wine at the Last Supper was fermented, just as it is among Orthodox Jew's today. Do you think that Jewish Law has changed? It seems to me that if we speak to an orthodox Jewish Rabbi, an expert in the Law of the Torah, we would have a pretty good idea about what Jewish people did and do for the Seder meal. I think that if you found a Jewish historical source for some of your ideas it would be far more convincing. The Last Supper is not a new thing, or something that was instituted just when Jesus lived and then discontinued, Jew’s have been practicing the Passover for 4000 years, I don’t suspect it has changed much. I do not have to be convincing. I have" fruit of the vine". It could not get any clearer. You are the one that needs to prove your case. If you are going to state it is ok to drink alcoholic wine, by the bible, you are going to have to prove it with no shadows. It is much safer to say it was grape juice. It does not mock you know. You are the one that insists they used alcohol which is a poison to symbolic show the blood of Christ. I think if you used a Jewish historical source for some of your ideas you would be more convincing. Actually I do not trust anything modern day Jews would bring to the table...I do not think they are historically connected to the past and they are all backslid and have rejected their messiah so what they do today may be nothing like what Jews did in time of Jesus ....period. Case in point...Like head covers, wearing black, those curls what is up with that?......and they still practice circumcision, they have blinders on. Here is what Wik says... "What the exact forms of Judaism were during the times of Moses or during the eras of the Mishnah and Talmud cannot be exactly known today in all their details, but Orthodox Jews maintain that contemporary Orthodox Judaism maintains the same basic philosophy and legal framework that existed throughout Jewish history, whereas the other denominations depart from it."

What are you talking about? I have lost tract. I do not remember doing as you say. Please restate what you said.