Social drinking?

[The Lemon]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

A glutton and a drunk are both extreme.

As KeptByHisWord pointed out Proverbs 23:21, we see that both are addressed on the same level of laziness that will bring you to poverty.

The discussion wasn't about what was more sinful or personally destructive. The discussion was about which could do more harm to "others". I personally feel a drunk could physically harm far more people than a glutton.

By your own admission you say alcohol has "horrific addictions in society." So, inadvertently, you appear to have a personal view of liquor being more harmful, IMO. Of course, that doesn't negate the fact that both will bring you to laziness and poverty.





Now, you say you respected the Vegan by not eating meat. I attended a party and asked the host if liquor would be present. I don't attend parties when liquor is present. BTW, it was a family party with children present. Should I have attended this person's party and out of respect taken a drink offered to me? If I didn't, would I be acting disrespectful? And if I didn't and it wasn't disrespectful, why is it more respectful for you concerning the Vegan because only harmless food is involved?

I see your point....I have not been around the world in other countries - I have heard from preacher friends that in some countries, if offered wine, and one refused, it would in fact actually offend them. Culture and custom seem to be strong in certain instances.

I am not saying it would be right or wrong - just saying what I have heard - I am not aware of not partaking in America as being particularly offensive - but I am just a hick living in the country...

As for the Vegan, I knew him personally and knew how offended he would be with me eating a juicy steak basically in his face, so I did what I felt in my heart and spirit was the right thing.

Some of this discussion is good and productive, and I feel we all can learn here and appreciate the thought provoking posts - that said, depending on your past, or even perhaps present - some of this can also be very subjective.

I realize if we took a 40,000 foot view one could argue the ills of alcohol abuse in respect to "others", still, it is also fair to say that there are many folks who take liberty in this area who are not abusive or alcoholics by any stretch of the imagination - approaching this subject from that vantage point would take on a whole other feeling IMHO.

One major flaw is any assertion that one sin is any greater then another...gluttony and drunkenness are both sins - one is not better or worse then the other - sure there can be more harm done to other people with alcohol abuse, I acknowledge this fact, and for that reason, there are situations where not partaking at all is the best and most wise choice.

Appreciate you PO!!

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I searched for boiled wine and could not find it. Please give a reference verse

Its a historical fact. Google it.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

wordstudy
μεθύω
methúō; fut. methúō, from méthu (n.f., see méthē [G3178]), wine. Generally to drink wine or strong drink more freely than usual without any reference to whether one gets drunk or not. To be drunk, get drunk, and by implication to carouse. Used in an absolute sense in Mat_24:49 as a pl. subst., tṓn methuóntōn, "with the drunken." See Act_2:15; 1Co_11:21; 1Th_5:7. Used metaphorically in Rev_17:2 (meaning to become drunk with fornication, i.e., never having enough of it); Rev_17:6 (equating the blood shed with the means of drunkenness. See Sept.: 1Sa_1:13; Job_12:25; Isa_28:21 [cf. Deu_32:42]).


It looks like he did rebuke them
1Co 11:21 For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk.
1Co 11:22 What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not.
1Co 11:23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread,
1Co 11:24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me."
1Co 11:25 In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me."
1Co 11:26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.
1Co 11:27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.
1Co 11:28 Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.

1Co 5:11 But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler--not even to eat with such a one.

Co 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,
1Co 6:10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
1Co 6:11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Paul rebuked them for their selfishness not for being "drunk" and them told the to eat and drink at home. By implication he was telling them its okay to be "drunk" at home.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Gentiles who were converts or were converting.

A gentile convert is no longer a gentile but a Jew.

They were gentiles until they were converted. Not all converted to Judaism. Many gentiles went to the synagogue.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

You confusing Gentiles with Gentile converts. Ruth was married to one and was willing to leave her people to become a member of Israel.

Gentiles that went to Synagogues were converts or "near" converts..gentiles that obeyed the law except circumcision

and I see no prohibition for Gentiles to drink wine

You are confusing a gentile that went to synagogue with Jews. Jews were circumcised. Do you believe Cornelius was a Jew or a gentile? If you try to place him in the Jewish encampment then you have to explain why the Jews were astonished that he received the Holy Ghost.

Many people do not see a prohibition against alcohol. It is not a democracy, ask Noah.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by The Lemon

I see your point....I have not been around the world in other countries - I have heard from preacher friends that in some countries, if offered wine, and one refused, it would in fact actually offend them. Culture and custom seem to be strong in certain instances.

I am not saying it would be right or wrong - just saying what I have heard - I am not aware of not partaking in America as being particularly offensive - but I am just a hick living in the country...

As for the Vegan, I knew him personally and knew how offended he would be with me eating a juicy steak basically in his face, so I did what I felt in my heart and spirit was the right thing.

Some of this discussion is good and productive, and I feel we all can learn here and appreciate the thought provoking posts - that said, depending on your past, or even perhaps present - some of this can also be very subjective.

I realize if we took a 40,000 foot view one could argue the ills of alcohol abuse in respect to "others", still, it is also fair to say that there are many folks who take liberty in this area who are not abusive or alcoholics by any stretch of the imagination - approaching this subject from that vantage point would take on a whole other feeling IMHO.

One major flaw is any assertion that one sin is any greater then another...gluttony and drunkenness are both sins - one is not better or worse then the other - sure there can be more harm done to other people with alcohol abuse, I acknowledge this fact, and for that reason, there are situations where not partaking at all is the best and most wise choice.

Appreciate you PO!!

Several points.

1. Taking liberties is not speaking to drunkeness. Taking liberties doesn't have to mean a person became drunk or became a drunk. By way of example, someone making a pass is taking liberties, but they can be stopped before things get out of hand. A person can stop drinking before they are drunk. A drunk probably can't.

2. The Bible is speaking of someone who has gone beyond liberties when referring to a drunk or drunkeness. That is excess, over the top, life changing, i.e. going into poverty because you have become lazy is life changing and destructive. You keep going back to not excessive, when the whole issue is excess. Gluttony and drunkeness are already at the end of excess. There are no more small liberties involved here. Actually, drunkeness is not even social drinking.

3. We haven't been discussing a contest between the greater sin. I don't believe anyone here has stated one was more sinful than the other. I just believe one is more dangerous than the other. IOW, Murder is more dangerous than stealing, but they are both sinful acts.

I can also respect your decision to honor your friend. That is always commendable. However, if that was a friend of mine and I knew how "highly offended" they would be, I think I would part company. That's just really weird and would totally offend me that a supposed friend would be "highly offended" if I didn't do things their way. Hasta luego, Cocodrilo. That's just me.

Appreciate you as well, Lemon. Always enjoy your posts!

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

But certainly you don't have time now, but you had time to answer three more posts after this one. Have a nice prayer meeting.

And I gave a quick answer to YOUR post so don't try to play like I ignored your post. It doesn't work.

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

No assumptions concerning what I have been posting in this thread, in fact it is you who is the one assuming that Gentiles mingle with religious Judeans in the first century A.D.

So gentiles were NEVER in a synagogue?
Perhaps it was the non-religious Jews that went to synagogue?
LOL!!! Indeed!!!

(Act 14:1 KJV) And it came to pass in Iconium, that they went both together into the synagogue of the Jews, and so spake, that a great multitude both of the Jews and also of the Greeks believed.
(Act 18:4 KJV) And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.

And that does not take into account men like Cornelius.
Ooopppsss... Maybe Jews and gentiles DID mingle even those "religious" Jews!

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

It doesn't have to say that anyone was intoxicated, but it does show the wine which was in the cup which the governor of the feast brought to his lips, was number one, the best, number two, a grade which is usually served at the beginning of festive occasions. Number three, drink which was quite capable to make anyone intoxicated, enough so they would not recognize inferior quality grade drink. No way around that verse, it clearly says what it says with no need for assumptions, unless you are protecting some Wesleyan prohibition against fermented alcoholic wine.

That was the "govenors" experience of OTHER parties. The "best" does not mean the highest alcohol content. You are once again inserting a 21st century paradigm upon a 1st century celebration. Children were present and drank the same oinos.

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Sorry, but the first observation comes from the governor's first tasting of the wine to indicate it was the best, second observation is that the best wines were usually served first because of the ability to cause men not to notice a wine of lesser degree later on after they have drank well. If the governor of the feast was tasting unfermented grape juice he could of certainly commented on goodness, or it being the best fruit juice he ever tasted, but he would of never used the Greek word for intoxication, since unfermented fruit juice has no ability to make anyone's judgement impaired.

This is a closed case.

We agree your mind is closed.

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Quote the Bible (not Talmud) where we can find scripture where this ruling is stated in the Hebrew Bible.

It was Rabinnic tradition that religious Jews would follow.
Since you hate Rabbininc tradition where does the Law state it is unlawful for Jews and gentiles to mingle?

Just because YOU don't like does not mean the cultural context does not exist.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

No, your point was well understood, you were trying to say that First Century Judeans were having a regular schmoozfest with the Gentiles, and even more far fetched Samaritans? You tried to introduce this thought in order to substantiate some idea that the wine Jesus created out of water was boiled. This sort of wine any Rabbi would call inferior and not fit for sacramental (kiddush) use at a wedding.

But please, when you are done with your busy schedule come back and show us all the Bible verses for boiled wine served to Gentiles.

Again you have missed the whole point. Please tell me where I said the oinons Jesus made was boiled wine? A straw man argument to take away from the point. Oh yes and I never said "smoozfest". I have stated many times now that gentiles and Jews went to synagogue together. That is a fact.

Because of this FACT it is very likely that gentiles were present as guests at Jewish weddings. Even if they were not it is possible that gentiles were servants since half the Roman populations were slaves. Whenever a single gentile was in the midst of Jews the tradition was to use yayin mevushal - boiled wine. That is also a cultural FACT of the time.

I am about through with this thread. I am sorry I came back to this site. As to your post concerning yayin mevushal not being served at Jewish weddings shows your ignorance of it since you and apparently no one else even knew it existed until I mentioned it. That in itself tells me you know very little about 1st century oinos.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Its a historical fact. Google it.

But is there an example from scriptures?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Paul rebuked them for their selfishness not for being "drunk" and them told the to eat and drink at home. By implication he was telling them its okay to be "drunk" at home.

the verb "Drunk" refers to what it sounds like, Getting drunk.
1Co 11:21 For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk.

The following verses are rebuke
1Co 11:27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.
1Co 11:28 Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.

1Co 5:11 But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler--not even to eat with such a one.

Co 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,
1Co 6:10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
1Co 6:11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

No he was not telling them it's OK

Robertson
What? Have ye not houses? (Mē gar oikias ouk echete̱) The double negative (mē̇̇ouk) in the single question is like the idiom in 1Co_9:4. which see. Mē expects a negative answer while ouk negatives the verb echete. “For do you fail to have houses?” Paul is not approving gluttony and drunkenness but only expressing horror at their sacrilege (despising, kataphroneite) of the church of God.