Servant54

Again, there is no such thing as a pastor in the Bible. There are only three offices in the Bible: Apostle, elder, deacon. There is no "pastor." This is not evidenced in Scripture at all. Where have you read that Timothy drank water only? Timothy was actually not an apostle. You could make such an argument convincingly, but there is no identification of Timothy as an apostle directly in Scripture. All the other apostles were identified as such, but not Timothy. This is why I used the term "co-worker" in my earlier response. Typically Apostles "plant churches." Timothy was left in Corinth to oversee the church there. The term "pastor" is the modern interpretation of the Biblical elder. There is no "pastor" in the Bible. In the KJV there is a verse in 1 Peter, I believe, which says "pastor the flock among you..." That word translated "pastor" in the Greek literally means "shepherd." That word was written to the eldership, not to "pastors." In fact that word is used again in a subsequent verse which says that the "When the Chief Shepherd returns..." How odd it would be to translate that word again as "pastor." Yet it doesn't. You may think that's splitting hairs - pastor vs. elder - but the meaning of the term today is completely lost from its original intent, and it's foreign to its intended function in the church. Well this is all fine and good..why are you still talking about this? Thessalonians has the answer to Tim as an Apostle..did you even read it? It is there.( Hint.. See Tim and follow pronoun trail to apostle.) Doesn't Eph 4;11 have pastors.......... "poimon" Greek (elder/bishop is episkopos Greek) Yes, I think you are spilling hairs I am kind of wondering why this rabbit trail ever got started.

Actually they did have 7/11's in bible times and they had tramways to them that donkeys carried them on. The 7/11 were called 8/10's in that they were not open as earlier or as late. Yes, I am just making it up as I go along and if I can not back it up right next to what I am say with some historical proof from some contemporary's writings it just becomes my story of how is was right? Now you know how we feel when you have no proof of what you say. //////////////// Thank you again for the parroted argument of God having a booze bash in heaven. We have already dealt with that text... basically the Hebrew does line up with the translations saying "aged wine". just not there..its made up. Just plain grape juice. Sorry I had to be the one to bring it to you.

you can't prove a negative. In other words, there is no way to prove that Jesus didn't wear Roman sandals either. But had He been an exception to the society He grew up in with regard to eating or drinking, it would have prominently noted because the Jewish community has ALWAYS focused a lot of attention on diet. Either way...if you guys insist on projecting a specifically American-religious morality onto the story of His righteousness, I obviously can't stop you but I will warn that yours is a works based faith if you think what goes into our belly and is later emptied into the gutter can make us either more OR less righteous. Number one is we are not talking about Jews, we are talking about Gentiles...Timothy was in a Gentile society. Those he ministered to did not pay attention to diet. He did what he did in front of Gentiles. The Asia Minor and Greece area. I Tim 5:23 No longer drink water exclusively, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments. The Greek word here is "water drinker" all one word Hudrropoteo Can you give us a logical explanation why Timothy was a water only man? Yes, we have a works based faith

No, you have a biased view of Scripture because of what you have been taught by religious minds. The reason I stated I thought Timothy was a pastor is because that is the general consensus our there in Christiandom. Paul was writing to Timothy so even though he was Paul's underling he was not with Paul during this time. Note in Timothy he was instructing him to instruct others........ sounds like a pastor... "Charge some" "Let deacons be" "I write that you might know how to conduct YOURSELF IN THE HOUSE OF GOD which is the church" (He wrote Tim because he was in charge of the church) "If you instruct the brethren you will be a good MINISTER" "Till I come give attention to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine"......... sounds like church to me "Do not let a widow" ..........Dealt with widows, who does that in a church? "Refuse younger widows" " These things command"............Dealt with those who will not work "Let the elders"...........he is a head of elders "Do not receive an accusation against an elder" "Those who are sinning rebuke" Who does this in a church? "Do not lay hands on anyone hastily" .......imparting to people, who does this? "Let servants" ........dealt with servants Contend with unwholesome teacher "command the rich" "Do the work of an evangelist"......... another office he held? Timothy WAS an Apostle, so my point still remains that Paul and Timothy had the same doctrine and the likely hood is that if Timothy drank water only then Paul did the same.( At least when in Asia Minor) They would not have had a different belief system, especially since Timothy was under Paul. Before everyone argues that Timothy was not an apostle they better study Thessalonians. I did they above study just so I can get it into my own mind, fresh , the proofs for Timothy most likely being a pastor. It has been 30 years since I learned this teaching.

So, according to your private interpretation of the scriptures concerning wine, Paul was actually enticing Timothy to sin.... Do you not see the way your interpretation contradicts the scriptures yet? We already have been over this. Thank you for bring in up again though because it shows certain arguments are parroted over and over. We already disgust how the bible teaches that alcohol has a use for medical purposes...this is one of those times. Also Proverbs 31 mentions two other ones. Not to say this wine was the same as wine today or even the watered down wine the Gentiles drank, it could have been plain grape juice..but I doubt it. Thank you for your post.

That was meant as a joke. I have been asked numerous times if I had a scripture to prove drinking is a sin and when I can not come up with those exact word someone say see drink is not as sin. I have a "bias view of scripture" because I say Timothy was a pastor? What a weird off the wall statement. What a stretch..you must be getting desperate. May I suggest you try thinking outside of the box you have created around yourself for a small time period and see what the abstinence side of this discussion is trying to say. I believe the side issue is to distract from the main topic and is an attack on my bible knowledge to discredit me. I can tell you right up front that I am not a bible scholar..I just read the arguments for and against this issue and learn from my mistakes. I make mistakes. Have a good sleep.

Ah......no....he wasn't. The bible imply he was..many feel he was..but it is neither here nor there..he was in leadership..telling elders what to do etc. There is no such thing as a "pastor" in the Bible. It never uses the word. Timothy was a co-worker of Paul who was an apostle. Again, yeah great............ I concede..I am just going off what I have heard. It has nothing to do with alcohol. You are right and I am wrong..I will never say Timothy is a pastor. Wow! You mean you're so easy to concede tour error with regard to Timothy but not with regard to your position regarding the historic application of "wine" in the Bible? Sad when someone has to pick out a minor side point and try to make it a major issue. Makes it seem as of they have exhausted they arguments. I am sure most honest folks will see through it. Head on though, I will admit when I am wrong or even am seemingly wrong. Oh did you have a scripture that said Timothy was NOT a pastor? I thought not.

Fermentation is not corruption. It's a chemical process. The Lord Jesus was embalmed in a chemical process! What? " Fermentation is not corruption." Crush a grape. What takes place? It begins to corrupt or rot .......the sugars turn to alcohol..this is a corruption process. Jesus blood never went through this process "Thou shalt not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption."...... It was pure like fresh juice.

Ah......no....he wasn't. The bible imply he was..many feel he was..but it is neither here nor there..he was in leadership..telling elders what to do etc. There is no such thing as a "pastor" in the Bible. It never uses the word. Timothy was a co-worker of Paul who was an apostle. Again, yeah great............ I concede..I am just going off what I have heard. It has nothing to do with alcohol. You are right and I am wrong..I will never say Timothy is a pastor.

in your imagination!?! There is no such "doctrine" and there is no hint that Timothy abstained from wine. Chapter and verse, please? So why would Shaul (Paul) tell him to drink wine for his stomach ailments if that was sin?? (1 Tim 5:22) There are 238 times in the bible where wine is mentioned. Even though many of them speak about overindulgence, there isn't ONE place where it says that merely having a drink of wine is sin. Why is that? Because it isn't sin! Give it up already...you can't prove your position because it's not true. Yes, he probably was drinking wine when Paul says to drink wine..... and not water ONLY...look up the Greek word for "water only" it is one word. There is your scripture. If I say I have only lived in New York do I have to prove I have never lived in Paris? It is implied. If you drink water only it would mean you do not drink wine. You abstain from drink it.

Ah......no....he wasn't. The bible imply he was..many feel he was..but it is neither here nor there..he was in leadership..telling elders what to do etc.

The use of wine at the Passover observance was added after their return from Babylonian exile. The Bible records no objection to this innovation, and therefore Jesus could properly make use of wine at the Passover meal. Of course, the natural fermentation that took place in wine of ancient times was different from what occurred in connection with bread. In the case of dough, fermentation required the addition of yeast, or leaven. Wine made from grapes needed no such additive. The elements of fermentation were already present in the grapes. Plain grape juice would not have been available at the Passover because it would not have remained unfermented from harvesttime in the fall until Passover in the springtime. Hence, Jesus

Timothy's doctrine of abstinence........ Where did he get this teaching? Timothy was a pastor and abstained from wine. Was this an isolated case, someone's personal teaching different from others? Paul says to Timothy in IITim 3:10 BUT you have carefully followed MY DOCTRINE, manner of life, purpose, faith, long suffering, love, perseverance. It is literally "THE TEACHING" in the Greek He was commended by Paul for being "along side" of him..right in step with Paul. Does this not lend to the fact that Paul and the rest of the church believed as Timothy? Paul obviously would not have been "along side of wine" as he was an elder. This is an amazing side truth. Bible doctrine is here a little and there a little line on line precept on precept.

Yod, you say.. Passover was not and still is not about "typology". It's about remembering our redemption and the 4 full cups of wine have ALWAYS represented fullness of joy. And they have ALWAYS been fermented. there is no leaven in wine so that's moot. /////////////////// I say.... When they wiped blood on the door post back in Egypt, what was the significance of that action? Yes, it was Jesus' blood shed for us. Passover has everything to do with typology. Everything they did is a type of something to come. It had to to with Jesus on that cross..it pointed to him. There is leaven in alcohol wine. Leaven is yeast. Leaven is a type of sin. No sin in Jesus or his life giving blood. No corruption in Jesus like with alcoholic wine. What about the bread...it also has no leaven, no yeast action growing in it, it is leavenless, Jesus was a sinless man, he is our passover lamb, his body knew no sin and did not see corruption. He rose uncorrupted.

Yod, you say.. Passover was not and still is not about "typology". It's about remembering our redemption and the 4 full cups of wine have ALWAYS represented fullness of joy. And they have ALWAYS been fermented. there is no leaven in wine so that's moot. I say.... When they wiped blood on the door post back in Egypt, what was the significance of that action? Yes, it was Jesus' blood shed for us. Passover has everything to do with typology. Everything the did is a type of something to come. It had to to with Jesus on that cross..it pointed to him. There is leaven in alcohol wine. Leaven is yeast. Leaven is a type of sin. No sin in Jesus or his life giving blood. No corruption like with alcoholic wine. What about the bread...it also has no leaven, no yeast action growing in it, it is leavenless, Jesus was a sinless man, he is our passover lamb, his body knew no sin and did not see corruption. He rose uncorrupted.

Cobalt..... Do you see what Ax and I are trying to say though? (Even though this is a small side point I realize) You have two words put together PARA and OINOS There is no other definition for these words apart or together. I learned what para meant in Greek Word Studies class 20 years ago...it means along side...period. Oinos is wine...period. http://www.yourdictionary.com/para-prefix Now if these commentaries have historical documents that show this word used in the sense they convey great, but if they do not they are just making up meanings and copying each other. I notice you have not commented on the fact that this elder rule of yours is just a repeat of a regular Christian rule..do you have an idea why? I think Ax is light heartedly teasing you....he means no harm I am sure.

The only way we can learn what an ancient Greek or Hebrew word means is to look at old documents of the time period. These now are becoming available at the touch of a key. We have much more information then scholars of old. You can not ask a Jew, I did this in a huge dahlia garden last year, he was a rabbi..he quoted Strongs The Greek of today is way different then back then..a Greek told be that last week..he knew old Greek and new Greek and said they are totally different. Besides words change..look at how our words change. Take the word Shekar. It is Hebrew. It is translated "strong drink" by KJV. Now I have researched this word and the best I can come up with is it is any product of the sap of a date palm tree. Someone during a debate about four years ago said it can only be an alcoholic drink and since God said it was ok to drink as a tithe in Duet. then He put his stamp of approval on alcoholic beverages. Strong's said it was a alcoholic drink from barley maybe .. I have never found where he got that. So I dug all through the internet. Several people said it could only be alcoholic because the sap turns to alcohol so quickly in the heat. Just not true. Finally I find out it can be many products from the sap of the date palm..we get our word sugar from it apparently. It was used as THE sugar of everyone until cane sugar came along..it is still used today. I have many articles on it. Many products are made from this sap. It is like our maple syrup. I even went on an Indian web sight and even found an older gal who said that they had "tutti" a drink from the coconut palm sap and it was both alcoholic and non alcoholic and she drank the non alcoholic as a kid and the alcoholic was forbidden because of religion. A parallel situation. Talked to a Indian today who confirmed that. The reason it was such a strong drink is because of the high sugar content, distilled alcohol was not invented until the ninth century so this was as strong as it got. Anyway, I was able to dig up much more information then any commentary could have ever imagined of finding. I can talk to someone on the other side of the world and get a reply and a person story..something a commentary could never have had. Anyway this is not to convince you of anything just show an example of how we have it over those scholars of yester year. They were the best for their time. Bless them.

I do not blame anyone for faulting me. I probably look like I am way on a limb to some. I went to bible college 14 years off and on( I was not a good student)..the first couple years we used what translations said and leaned heavy on commentaries..after getting burnt because we followed someone else's line of reason we began to branch out..study Greek and realize just how far off many scholars opinions were off. If we were all of the same belief system I could give you examples that would make you just cringe, but I do not want to offend anyone on here with my examples. Finally as a student of the bible you began to leave others opinions unless you study say 30 of them and you sift through why they say what they say. The truth usually shows up..just like with this subject..I tell people to read thirty articles pro and con and you began to see who has done the research and who is a parrot. So, even though it seems we should grab what commentaries say, they are not always even in the ball park..many times they are right on..but we need to be careful not to take their word as gospel. Just like now..what the words meaning is is right there and they trail off with some elaborate word picture. I am not worried if you get this...I know you will some day and you will laugh going "oh that is what they were talking about" This area of scripture about elders argued is actually neither nor there..it does not prove drinking is ok in God's eyes, even if you were right. I think learning about commentaries is a good rabbit trail. Enjoy the summer weather...........

The command is still the same. Do not be a drunkard. You claimed it says not to drink at all. It does not say that. It does not imply that. Neither does Proverbs 31. I do not drink. I abstain from alcohol, so your admonition is kind of wasted on me. I do not crave alcohol. That is not my problem. My problem is with your misuse of scripture. I could careless what you do, (its between you and God) my addressing you is because of your missing what the text says not because you do or do not drink. You said DO NOT WANT IT, I am just agreeing with you. You admitted (perhaps without realizing it) exactly what I have been saying..the bible says do not look on it and that means do not want it. I will say it again.. Is it any clearer than this?

Where are your getting your definitions? First off it's not "my person." I did not write the book, I only got the definition from it. The problem is, the word does not mean what you say it means and you simply don't have the decency to admit you are wrong. Every biblical scholar and information source is wrong, and you are the only one who knows what the word means? Strong's, Thayer's and Vine's are all wrong? Let's look at a few more then:

Thank you for addressing this scripture. Thank you for your commentary. What you say is exactly what I have said all along..".DO NOT WANT IT. NEED IT, CRAVE IT!" It is a commandment.."DO NOT" (Read other "DO NOT's" in the chapter) Is it any clearer than this? If you break a commandment you are sinning. Join me..do not want it, do not need it, do not crave it....abstain from it. Thank you for all your time in creating your post. Have a great day.

So what you are saying is this is not a warning about drinking or drunkeness but this is a warning about drink poison. I have heard this before and since we all know is that grape juice is not poison and finished wine is not poison I would have a hard time believing something in between is Do we know of anyone who has died from this...I thought not. Later translations? What does that mean? They say pretty much the same thing. Maybe a little proof to back up your "fact"..I have a hard time with these statements. I believe this is totally untrue. Actually yes we do..... well at least those who have played around with making wine do. One of the major California wineries sold some wine that contained this bacteria and as I remember two or three people died from it and it made several others sick before they could recall it. Happened about 35 or so years ago. I find it interesting that you didn't bother to look up the scripture, for they do not say the same thing. I don't know if I can find anything that would satisfy you on the bad wine, but if I can find something still available I'll post it. So, is what you are saying is Proverbs 23:31 is saying do not look at wine in the making of it because it may contain botulism or other poison ? Right in the middle of talking about a moral issue the father STOPS and is bring up issues about accidental poisonings. I love it! Please, keep going on this topic, find more on it. Get some quotes about wine fermenting is poison until it is fermented. I think your story about California is talking about wine that was finished..not in the "process of being made"..kind of defeats the point of bring in up if the people were not poisoned by wine that was in the process of fermenting..right? "Later translations?" Still wondering what this is about.

The word is the same in both 1 Timothy 3:3 and Titus 1:7. The greek word is "paroinos" and means, quite simply, "not given to wine." I.e., not a drunkard. It does not mean to abstain from alcohol. 3943 p

Again I ask....where does it say that in the Bible? I totally understand that is the "tradition" of your denomination...and why. But lets go to the real authority, the one you call "the perfect" instead, shall we? I would get bored if everyone agreed with me but I'm going to keep trying until MG comes out of the liberal closet! Thanks for the opportunity to type this response to an anonymous name on a computer screen. I am still having a hard time that no one understands the typology of the passover. Jesus did not see corruption, he died and was bodily resurrected before his body rotted, he knew no sin. These two facts show that "pure juice", "fruit of the vine" were the elements of the passover as well as Christian communion. Alcoholic wine is made when the natural fruit DECAYS from sugar to alcohol, like birds getting drunk on rotten fruit. Also the leavening action is a type of sin..a little leaven leavens the whole lump, that is why we use non fermented(leavened) bread for communion. Chrsit had no sin..no leaven. Now Jews of today do things different..but that does not make it right..they are backslid and we are not to get doctrine from today's backslid Jews. They as a group have rejected Christ (unless you are talking about Christian Jews.) So someone who insists on saying the passover or the communion has alcoholic wine just does not understand what they symbolize at all. My Savior has no sin and my communion wine has no alcohol. Again Jesus is the KING of KING'S and kings are not to drink alcohol Pro31 because they could pervert the law..who greater than Jesus in giving out the law..He was the ultimate law giver and it was a spiritual law to decided who went to heaven and hell not just who died and who did not as regular kings. This is very simple logic..no one should miss this. We are also kings revelation says..is it not as important that we not drink that we might pervert the law? Are non abstainers saying it is ok to get buzzed( not drunk mind you) before going street witness....having alcohol on your breath..you know just having a quick one before being in a crowd so you can overcome fears of being before people. Is there something wrong with this picture? I witness ever where I go..and that is why I do not drink..I do not want to be "buzzed" or have booze breath answering salvation questions at some party, park or restaurant of some young person.

We have already gone over this but I need to memorize it anyway.....the Greek reads "not given to" in Timothy 3:3 and the Greek in Titus 1:7 reads " not one beside wine" Your translation is not a transliteration but a poor paraphrase of what is really said. We need to check the Greek if we are going to form doctrine from a passage. Again every Christian is called to be "Not given to drunkenness" so even baby Christians could be elders if that was the only rule in becoming one..it makes no sense. No one has answered why Timothy was abstaining when Paul said take a little wine for stomach sake..care to take a stab at it? Thank you for answering kindly to me.