Civil Religious Discussions : all things Christianity II

[PaulF]

Hi there.
Just thinking out loud, seems to me that yeah sure they drank water, wine, they had drinks with water and juice mixed with wine, I'm pretty sure that fermented honey and grain drinks weren't a mystery seeing as the Egyptians had such forever... but that Jesus didn't make a practice of drinking "too much". So what I was thinking is that He drank whatever they drank in the civilization that he was physically manifested in. So thinking that, there doesn't seem to be much in debate. I guess me saying "Wrong" was the wrong way to express my thoughts that there isn't anything to argue about.

One thing I've puzzled over is whether or not they had distillation of alcohol. Can hardly imagine why they wouldn't have had it. There is a reference to "strong drink" in scripture but I haven't looked it up for the word root and translation.

I have read that alcoholic spirits were being distilled in India as early as 2000-3000 BC, but it seems that wine and beer were the main alcoholic beverages available in the time and place of Jesus.

I have always understood the reference to "strong drink" as a fermented alcoholic beverage similar to beer...but I never really thought about it before you brought it up.

 

[2A_Tom]

I have never spent any time on that study, well, because in the grand scheme it does not matter.

 

[printcraft]

Hi there.
Just thinking out loud, seems to me that yeah sure they drank water, wine, they had drinks with water and juice mixed with wine, I'm pretty sure that fermented honey and grain drinks weren't a mystery seeing as the Egyptians had such forever... but that Jesus didn't make a practice of drinking "too much". So what I was thinking is that He drank whatever they drank in the civilization that he was physically manifested in. So thinking that, there doesn't seem to be much in debate. I guess me saying "Wrong" was the wrong way to express my thoughts that there isn't anything to argue about.

One thing I've puzzled over is whether or not they had distillation of alcohol. Can hardly imagine why they wouldn't have had it. There is a reference to "strong drink" in scripture but I haven't looked it up for the word root and translation.

It's was a carry over discussion from another thread to get it out of there and to here. No problems, I should have linked it.

 

[NKBJ]

I have read that alcoholic spirits were being distilled in India as early as 2000-3000 BC, but it seems that wine and beer were the main alcoholic beverages available in the time and place of Jesus.

I have always understood the reference to "strong drink" as a fermented alcoholic beverage similar to beer...but I never really thought about it before you brought it up.

Wow, imagine that. It might be tech they took along when they went to the land we know as Scotland.
But it wouldn't be the same calling it a single malt Dan. Sounds like a kid at the drive-in with no money.

 

[historian]

The movement was aimed at getting laws changed. They did a lot more than violate laws to get that done. In fact, very little of what they did was violate laws.

...but regardless, that people do things that are illegal and eventually attain a laudable goal does not make everything they did "right".

I'll Quote you in this thread since JK is on a break. Is this "Christian?"

https://religionnews.com/2020/08/13...t-worship-protest-gavin-newsom-eric-garcetti/

 

[historian]

Yes, but how? What was done that violated laws?


I'm a white guy, in the Midwest, under 50; that's why I ask.

Bump. I want your thoughts on the article above now that you are out of jail!

 

[HoughMade]

I'll Quote you in this thread since JK is on a break. Is this "Christian?"

https://religionnews.com/2020/08/13...t-worship-protest-gavin-newsom-eric-garcetti/

I do not think I would have taken the position that Mac Arthur has, but I am not in California. However, I am willing to admit that when we get close to the edges of the biblical exception ("obey God rather than man") to the rule (that laws should be followed) it gets harder to make that decision.

Personally, I believe that since the government is only regulating the manner in which the Word is preached, but not forbidding it from being preached, I would follow the law for now. I see this as a gray area (the Bible has plenty of them) and a matter of interpretation and conscience for the individual believer (and there are lots of those).

 

[NKBJ]

Reckon I'd have to go with individuals exercising their conscience. In other words, I know that government should let people congregate, get sick and die if that's what people want to do. And I'm not saying that tongue in cheek. Government shouldn't tell me I cannot involve myself in risky behaviors like driving, visiting Chicago, tight rope walking on a barb wire fence or going to the all you can eat fish Friday special (just soon as breakfast wears off). Or to church. I want to live in the free society made possible by our creator and that requires personal responsibility.

 

[HoughMade]

Individual freedom vis-a-vis the government is kind of a tough topic to list Bible verses about.

 

[2A_Tom]

Whereas I believe the bible says that we should obey G-d rather than man...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

I guess I'll have to say that churches should meet. If it is in a situation as right now they should take voluntary precautions. Not follow illegal government mandates.

 

[HoughMade]

Whereas I believe the bible says that we should obey G-d rather than man...

Except when they are supposed to obey government..which the Bible also says...a few times.

 

[NKBJ]

HoughMade,
Looks to me like First Peter lays it out pretty well.

 

[foszoe]

https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/king-papers/documents/letter-birmingham-jail

Just and unjust laws.

PERSONAL OPINION ALERT: With only cursory thought given to the subject, I would think the Christian would be obligated to fight the system within the system until the system fails. That means legal costs and appeals, after all if it is a matter of salvation one must choose whom they will serve. If its TRULY a matter of salvation then cost would be of no concern.

This is where the Calvinists have an upper hand, soteriologically speaking. They can maintain their wealth with no worries.

 

[foszoe]

Speaking of Calvinists, we know from our members here, that it can be a 2 edged sword as it can not only convince one of salvation, but also the converse, damnation. It is also a scripture I like to cite when talking with agnostics. I don't believe in atheists as I have yet to meet anyone who can prove the existence of them beyond what they say or believe and without empirical evidence....anyway.

The Matins reading for today was John 21:14-25. A familiar passage where Peter is asked if he loves Jesus 3 times.

Most readers here will know the English text misses the meaning of the underlying Greek so I will be brief. There are 3 words for love in greek, eros, philos, agape. When Jesus asks Peter the first 2 times he uses the word agape but Peter responds with philo. However the 3rd time Jesus asks he uses philo and Peter was grieved. I believe this is because Peter recognized the change in meaning.

The Church teaches, and this has been borrowed by many Protestants also (without proper citation ) that this is an example of Jesus always meeting us where we are. While some turn from sinners to saints in their actions in an instant, most of us continue to struggle against the same old sins that drove us into the arms of our Lord.

So to those agnostics and those who believe they are damned, allow Jesus to meet you where you are. Tell him all about your troubles. The light of Christ ALWAYS breaks through in the darkest places.

In the life of the Church and in the Christian life, it is best to remain unconvinced of many things, especially when we attempt to apply things we are convinced of to ourselves. We have only one judge, our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ who meets us where we are AND just after the passage with Peter, we are told how Jesus feels about his disciples. Often this gets missed in the homilies about Peter and Jesus but for some people it is the most important!

Vs. 20 Peter sees the "disciple whom Jesus loved following". The form here is agape. Jesus' love for us never changes. He is our Rock, the same yesterday, today, and forever. It is the key to why Jesus meets us where we are not demanding we come to where He is.

For those who feel lost or unknowing, simply allow Jesus to meet you where you are.

For those in the world, what love do you have for others? Is it Agape? Is it Philos? Or is it Eros?

As a final unrelated note, the gospel for today is Matthew 18:21-35 containing the parable about the king who forgave a servant's debt but this servant then went out and demanded a much smaller debt from a fellow servant. When the king heard of this he reversed his forgiveness of the debt. The key verse is v 35. What is the Calvinistic interpretation of this verse?

[FONT=&amp]Matthew 18:35[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]RSV2CE So also my heavenly Father will do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother from your heart.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]NKJV “So My heavenly Father also will do to you if each of you, from his heart, does not forgive his brother his trespasses.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]NASB95 “My heavenly Father will also do the same to you, if each ofyou does not forgive his brother from your heart.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]AMP So also My heavenly Father will deal with every one of you if you do not freely forgive your brother from your heart his offenses.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]ESV So also my heavenly Father will do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother from your heart.”[/FONT]

 

[JettaKnight]

I'll Quote you in this thread since JK is on a break. Is this "Christian?"

https://religionnews.com/2020/08/13...t-worship-protest-gavin-newsom-eric-garcetti/

I haven't had a chance to read Dr. MacArthur's statement, but this does give me pause - a well respected theologian and preacher ends up coming to that conclusion... it sure makes it hard to say what's right and what's wrong. Grace should be given in this situation.

 

[HoughMade]

HoughMade,
Looks to me like First Peter lays it out pretty well.

I agree 100%. There is an exception, but it is exceedingly narrow.

 

[historian]

Speaking of Calvinists, we know from our members here, that it can be a 2 edged sword as it can not only convince one of salvation, but also the converse, damnation. It is also a scripture I like to cite when talking with agnostics. I don't believe in atheists as I have yet to meet anyone who can prove the existence of them beyond what they say or believe and without empirical evidence....anyway.

As a final unrelated note, the gospel for today is Matthew 18:21-35 containing the parable about the king who forgave a servant's debt but this servant then went out and demanded a much smaller debt from a fellow servant. When the king heard of this he reversed his forgiveness of the debt. The key verse is v 35. What is the Calvinistic interpretation of this verse?

This, in context, is the "How much should I forgive" passage. If taken with the verses above it, looks as if it is talking to people who are already believers. It won't be pretty for them if they don't act like they should.

 

[2A_Tom]

I will apologize for not reading his statements in this case. I do believe that G-d commanded us to assemble Heb 10. and that we should obey G-d rather than man. especially since we in America have been graciously blessed by G-d in that the founders acknowledged our our foremost responsibility to obey him.

If the article is about something else I am sorry.

In mitigation I offer, the last thing I read that John MacArthur published is that the blood sacrifice of Christ was not necessary and that he could have been smothered with a pillow and his sacrifice would have been just as efficacious.

This is not an exact quote, but it is the gist of it.

 

[NKBJ]

Tom,
Looks to me as though oh so many are fixing to be assembled to Him.
Is that optimistic or pessimistic? Either way I need to be ready.

 

[JettaKnight]

Our pastor made a "cameo appearance" this week. (i.e. he wasn't preaching, just make some quick remarks)



He's back after having a fever over 102F for twelve days.
COVID-19 sucks even if you don't get hospitalized.