Alcohol

[Servant54]

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.

[Guest yod]

Legalism is a man made word...

...as are all words spoken by men.

its used as a religious slur to create bias agaisnt someone because of a particular belief they may (or may not ) have. It is not scriptural, and for all the talk of "plain and easy to understand" scripture...the right to call someone a religious slur like "legalist" is NOT biblical...plainly or otherwise.

mi amigo....Words have meaning. Without meaning we couldn't communicate as this thread seems to prove. The word "legalism" is useful for defining a particular type of action/behavior. The legalist imposes their own personal morality upon someone else as if it were law.

There are many things which are commanded by God. To do these things is not legalism...but to impose them upon an unwilling person would be.

Example; If your pastor says that there is a "law" in the scriptures against drinking alcohol but it isn't actually in the scriptures...then guess what? That pastor is being legalistic by attempting to misuse the scripture to enforce his own morality upon others.

If that Pastor says abusing alcohol is a terrible blight on your community and that everyone should abstain, then it is a local morality debate and not a universal scriptural mandate. If everyone chooses of their own free will to abstain then its not legalism. However, if someone is intimidated or forced into obeying a "law" of social morality then they have become a victim of legalism and those who imposed that law are "legalists"

It's a matter of motivation. The Lord never forces anyone to obey Him. He simply tells you what His counsel is in the Word and lets you know the consequences for making bad decisions and "what you sow you shall reap"

Do you see the difference between that and legalism?

[Guest yod]

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.

that's right. He knew no sin...and yet drank wine

Drinking wine is not a sin.

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.

Chrsit had no sin..no leaven.

there is no leaven in wine so that's moot.

So someone who insists on saying the passover or the communion has alcoholic wine just does not understand what they symbolize at all.

And someone who insists there is no fermented wine at a passover since the days of Moses is just in denial and has never observed the Passover.

My Savior has no sin and my communion wine has no alcohol.

that might be your particular denominational tradition but the early assembly used real wine.

Is there something wrong with this picture?

Yes, there is! You are trying to make the bible agree with you, instead of you agreeing with the bible.

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.

Do you assume that someone who drinks wine is automatically a drunkard? This is the problem. You can't seem to admit that there are lots and lots of people who have self-control and are not "given to much wine" like the Apostles and elders.

[Servant54]

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.

[Servant54]

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.

[Servant54]

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.

[Servant54]

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.

[Guest yod]

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.

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

[Guest yod]

Timothy's doctrine of abstinence........

Where did he get this teaching?

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.

[Ovedya]

Timothy was a pastor

Ah......no....he wasn't.