Was Jesus a wine bibber

[Woody]

Originally Posted By: Gary K

Flyboy,

Who was responsible for the accusations against Jesus that are bothering you? His friends? Neutral parties? His enemies?

It doesn't bother me at all, in fact, I quite enjoy it. What bothers me is that generally SDA will come up with the "it wasn't wine, it was grape juice" argument because we have become so comfortable in what we consider the truth.

Whether he drank grape juice or wine, I don't care, but I can promise you that if Jesus were a church elder today and a church member was at the grocery store standing behind him at the check-out line and noticed a bottle of wine in his cart, well... he wouldn't be an elder much longer.

Must say that from the posts I've read thus far in response to this, I am refreshed. It seems people are willing to consider the possibility, and are okay with it. I don't drink, and I think abstinence is okay, as is temperance, but we should not change the Bible to fit our ideas.

Good Response. Thanks Flyboy

[Gary K]

Originally Posted By: Flyboy

It doesn't bother me at all, in fact, I quite enjoy it. What bothers me is that generally SDA will come up with the "it wasn't wine, it was grape juice" argument because we have become so comfortable in what we consider the truth.

Whether he drank grape juice or wine, I don't care, but I can promise you that if Jesus were a church elder today and a church member was at the grocery store standing behind him at the check-out line and noticed a bottle of wine in his cart, well... he wouldn't be an elder much longer.

Must say that from the posts I've read thus far in response to this, I am refreshed. It seems people are willing to consider the possibility, and are okay with it. I don't drink, and I think abstinence is okay, as is temperance, but we should not change the Bible to fit our ideas.

Good Response. Thanks Flyboy

So, a response that does nothing to address my questions is a good response. Interesting. How would you like responses like that to questions you asked me?

[Flyboy]

Exactly what does your answer have to do with my questions? I see no correlation whatsoever.

It is a response to your question. You presume that someone made accusations to me against Jesus using this verse and that these accusations are bothering me? That's how I took your meaning, is that what you meant? My reply was that it doesn't bother me. I did not explicitly state that it was I who had the questions, but my reply, with my own thoughts, might have suggested that.

No one has made accusations about Jesus that bother me on this issue. I found this text, considered it, and am bringing it to the forum for discussion.

[Gustave]

am i hearing u right?

it wasnt welchs grape juice?

[Gail]

Quote:

What would God care if John drank grape Juice?

The Nazarite was prohibited from even eating the grape, wasn't he? Wine for sure.

[Gary K]

Originally Posted By: Gary K

Exactly what does your answer have to do with my questions? I see no correlation whatsoever.

It is a response to your question. You presume that someone made accusations to me against Jesus using this verse and that these accusations are bothering me? That's how I took your meaning, is that what you meant? My reply was that it doesn't bother me. I did not explicitly state that it was I who had the questions, but my reply, with my own thoughts, might have suggested that.

No one has made accusations about Jesus that bother me on this issue. I found this text, considered it, and am bringing it to the forum for discussion.

Flyboy,

You seem to have completely missed the point of my question. I asked you who made the accusations against Jesus. You know. who said He was a winebibber and glutton?

[Parade Orange]

GUSTAVE!

thanku for answering my question.

i said it with tongue in cheek but i also ask the way i asked cause i grew up thinking it was fresh like welchs and now reading all the posts i wonder just how long welches grape juice would last without fridgeration

it would have to be drunk up soon

and how often is there grape harvesting?

wine and vinagar last much longer of course

so it does make sense that the juice would be at various stages of freshness or rot

its very disturbing to think in any way shape or form that JESUS could have drunk non fresh at its finest welches grape juice

u do make do with what u got wherever u r i know

it seems like every long held dear doctrine or dogma or understanding is challenged when we apply our reason to it

[Flyboy]

Flyboy,

You seem to have completely missed the point of my question. I asked you who made the accusations against Jesus. You know. who said He was a winebibber and glutton?

That's why I asked for clarification Gary. Relax a little.

Obviously the people making these accusations against Jesus are not his friends? Jesus statement in these verses should make this a given. Again.... and including verse 18 this time...

"18 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon.’ 19 The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ Yet wisdom is justified by her deeds.”

Or, if you prefer, a bit more clearly stated, Luke 7:33-34

"33 For John the Baptist has come eating no bread and drinking no wine, and you say, ‘He has a demon.’ 34 The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’"

Does this or does this not appear to be a statement by Jesus that perhaps his enemies witnessed him having some wine (an act which he seemingly confirms in these verses) and thus decided to spread rumors about him being a drunkard (and a glutton)? To me it does.

And even if it isn't clear to you then at least engage in a cordial and patient discussion with those who don't agree with you, or don't engage at all.

[Gary K]

That's why I asked for clarification Gary. Relax a little.

Obviously the people making these accusations against Jesus are not his friends? Jesus statement in these verses should make this a given. Again.... and including verse 18 this time...

"18 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon.’ 19 The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ Yet wisdom is justified by her deeds.”

Or, if you prefer, a bit more clearly stated, Luke 7:33-34

"33 For John the Baptist has come eating no bread and drinking no wine, and you say, ‘He has a demon.’ 34 The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’"

Does this or does this not appear to be a statement by Jesus that perhaps his enemies witnessed him having some wine (an act which he seemingly confirms in these verses) and thus decided to spread rumors about him being a drunkard (and a glutton)? To me it does.

And even if it isn't clear to you then at least engage in a cordial and patient discussion with those who don't agree with you, or don't engage at all.

Flyboy,

As I read the first four books of the NT I see very little reality in the all charges the Scribes and Pharisees made against Jesus. They feared and hated him. They were looking for excuses to kill Him. They manufactured charges against Him at every opportunity.

In the entire context of what you quoted Jesus says, Look. John the Baptist came in a very austere manner. he lived apart from everyone and had an extremely simple lifestyle. To see him you had to go to where he was. What did the Scribes and Pharisees accuse John of? Having a devil. Any truth in that charge?

Jesus came and mingled with the people, all of the people. He didn't exclude anyone from His presence. He drove away no one. He drew publicans and sinners to Him. (see Matthew 9:9-12) After reading that story look at the attitude displayed towards Him by His enemies.

Now look at Jesus at a different time. (See Matthew 27:34) Gall is an anodyne, a pain reliever. Jesus refused it. Is this a man who would allow His senses to be clouded at any time? Jesus wouldn't even accept a pain reliever on the cross, and you want to believe that this same man would casually drink intoxicating substances? I find this very hard to believe. It doesn't fit His character.

Jesus never said He was a winebibber. His enemies made the charge. As they were exceedingly corrupt, do you really want to accept their word at face value?

[Flyboy]

Flyboy,

As I read the first four books of the NT I see very little reality in the all charges the Scribes and Pharisees made against Jesus. They feared and hated him. They were looking for excuses to kill Him. They manufactured charges against Him at every opportunity.

In the entire context of what you quoted Jesus says, Look. John the Baptist came in a very austere manner. he lived apart from everyone and had an extremely simple lifestyle. To see him you had to go to where he was. What did the Scribes and Pharisees accuse John of? Having a devil. Any truth in that charge?

Jesus came and mingled with the people, all of the people. He didn't exclude anyone from His presence. He drove away no one. He drew publicans and sinners to Him. (see Matthew 9:9-12) After reading that story look at the attitude displayed towards Him by His enemies.

Now look at Jesus at a different time. (See Matthew 27:34) Gall is an anodyne, a pain reliever. Jesus refused it. Is this a man who would allow His senses to be clouded at any time? Jesus wouldn't even accept a pain reliever on the cross, and you want to believe that this same man would casually drink intoxicating substances? I find this very hard to believe. It doesn't fit His character.

Jesus never said He was a winebibber. His enemies made the charge. As they were exceedingly corrupt, do you really want to accept their word at face value?

Not that it really matters (except for my own comfort that my fellow SDA's are thinking), but I can accept this answer. I don't agree with it, but I can accept that it is a reasonable personal interpretation of this text, grounded within its context.

Basically, the point I don't agree with you on is your focus on the accusation and discounting this question based on the lack of credibility of the accusers. My question, instead, focuses on Jesus' response to the accusation. Of course I think the accusation is false, that's the point of the text, Jesus is drawing a contrast between what he is being accused of (being a drunkard and glutton) to what he says he is actually doing (eating and drinking). I don't see the point of His making a comment about himself drinking if the drinking he refers to is water or some other innocuous drink. His point seems to be that they take something small and make it large, or in the case of John, they have nothing and make something out of it. If there was no drinking at all on His part, then He could have used the same comment for himself (making something out of nothing, rather than making something big out of something small) that He used for John.

All alcohol is potentially intoxicating when not used in moderation, but I'm not nowhere near to suggesting that Jesus was not moderate, simply that His words seem to suggest that He was known to have had some alcohol at some point.

As for suggesting that His refusal to relieve his own suffering at the Cross is evidence against my position, I think there is a pretty clear distinction between having a glass of wine at a party or with your friends over dinner and using it to dull pain, whether physical or emotional. Further to this point, Jesus was not just rejecting a painkiller during *any* suffering, this was THE suffering that would determine the fate of all mankind. Even regular drinkers see the detriment of resorting to alcohol as a crutch for pain. Imagine the advantage Satan would have had over Christ if He'd given the perception of escaping the pain of death. Perhaps, even, his rejection of alcohol at the Cross was actually meant to be a lesson of times when it IS inappropriate to use alcohol, the implication being that there is a time and place for it, but those time and places do not include physical/emotional pain.

Anyway, despite the fact that I don't agree with your position on this one, I do appreciate that rather than attack you have addressed this issue in context and have arrived at a personal interpretation which is not counter to general Biblical principles. But, at the end of the day, there is no proof of this on either side.

[Gary K]

Basically, the point I don't agree with you on is your focus on the accusation and discounting this question based on the lack of credibility of the accusers. My question, instead, focuses on Jesus' response to the accusation. Of course I think the accusation is false, that's the point of the text, Jesus is drawing a contrast between what he is being accused of (being a drunkard and glutton) to what he says he is actually doing (eating and drinking). I don't see the point of His making a comment about himself drinking if the drinking he refers to is water or some other innocuous drink. His point seems to be that they take something small and make it large, or in the case of John, they have nothing and make something out of it. If there was no drinking at all on His part, then He could have used the same comment for himself (making something out of nothing, rather than making something big out of something small) that He used for John.

All alcohol is potentially intoxicating when not used in moderation, but I'm not nowhere near to suggesting that Jesus was not moderate, simply that His words seem to suggest that He was known to have had some alcohol at some point.

As for suggesting that His refusal to relieve his own suffering at the Cross is evidence against my position, I think there is a pretty clear distinction between having a glass of wine at a party or with your friends over dinner and using it to dull pain, whether physical or emotional. Further to this point, Jesus was not just rejecting a painkiller during *any* suffering, this was THE suffering that would determine the fate of all mankind. Even regular drinkers see the detriment of resorting to alcohol as a crutch for pain. Imagine the advantage Satan would have had over Christ if He'd given the perception of escaping the pain of death. Perhaps, even, his rejection of alcohol at the Cross was actually meant to be a lesson of times when it IS inappropriate to use alcohol, the implication being that there is a time and place for it, but those time and places do not include physical/emotional pain.

Anyway, despite the fact that I don't agree with your position on this one, I do appreciate that rather than attack you have addressed this issue in context and have arrived at a personal interpretation which is not counter to general Biblical principles. But, at the end of the day, there is no proof of this on either side.

Flyboy,

I appreciate your attitude.

Does even one drink dull your senses, especially your sense of right and wrong? I have to say yes. I've been there and done that, both in moderation and to great excess.

Why drink wine at all? Most people will say it is to "relax". In other words, it is done to alter your sense of being, your state of consciousness. Nothing that I see in the Bible leads me to believe Jesus needed, or wanted, an altered state of consciousness. When everything around Him was madness and insanity He was still cool, calm, and collected. he was relaxed under the most extreme of situations and yet drank to relax in friendly social situations? It doesn't make sense.

There is another aspect of this issue that has not been addressed. Jesus, in the OT, gave strict instructions that no priest should ever drink alcohol before performing his priestly duties. Jesus' entire life here on earth was His preparation for performing His priestly duties in heaven. Was He going to go against His own instructions? If He had He would have been committing sin.

[Flyboy]

I think your positions here are well-considered, but to me they to not seem to support your position.

Anyway, I will personally take your thoughts and perspectives to heart. For me they highlight the character of God in valuable ways.

As I said elsewhere in this post, I don't need to be "right" on this issue, nor does anyone for that matter, as it is not terribly relevant in the big picture. But having a church pew filled with thinkers *is* relevant. I think it's important that, as we tell others about Christ, they see that we have doctrine, which we all generally accept, and we have other non-doctrinal beliefs which *ought* to allow for a spectrum of interpretations, which, if Biblically based and thoughtfully applied, can appeal to people across the equally broad spectrum of the human mind. What I have seen many times in churches throughout the world is that we try to destroy the spectrum of the human mind and convince everyone that there really is only one color, which is quite sad because there really are so many beautiful colors; Some people respond better to red, some to blue, others to green. Some to white wine, others to red. Hehe...

If a person has a good relationship with Christ, if they love him, if they seek to understand Him better, God will not judge us (I don't believe) harshly if our experiences have created slightly different personal interpretations of Him.

[Musicman1228]

Not only does God like a good bar-be-cue but He likes a little something to go along with it.

Its drink offering shall be a quarter of a hin for each lamb. In the Holy Place you shall pour out a drink offering of strong drink to the LORD. Num. 28:7.

If strong drink was forbidden then where would the Levites have gotten the strong drink to offer to the Lord?

What you must do with Tithe:

"and spend the money for whatever you desire—oxen or sheep or wine or strong drink, whatever your appetite craves. And you shall eat there before the LORD your God and rejoice, you and your household". Deut. 14:26.

In more modern terminology: let's party.

The full instructions for Tithing can be found in Deut. 14:22-29. Most of you will be surprised to note that the Tithe was NOT to go 'into the storehouse' for the priests (although God said not to forget them, or the widows and orphans), but the tithe was to be used to Celebrate before the Lord. This included drinking strong drink. (Wine is not considered strong drink because it is not distilled.)

There were admonitions to the priesthood about not imbibing strong drink when they were to serve before the Lord in the temple. The rest of the time the Levites were under the same rules a the rest of the camp of Israel.

Scripture does not preclude drinking alcoholic beverages, it simply states 'don't get drunk'. Our church teaches abstinence, which is clearly not in Scripture.

[Parade Orange]

JESUS didnt defend have to HIMSELF

its called BOUNDRIES

u go about your business and make your points and do what u have to do while they bully insult and accuse doesnt mean u have to address it everytime.

they are constant calling him things and it looks like he ignores them

and as ive said earlier foes spin everything u do in the worst ways

and yes strong drink is forbidden! that says alot against false allegations itself thanks for pointing that out FLYBOY

and just because its forbidden doesnt mean it doesnt exist

there is fermented grapejuice everywhere!

[Gary K]

I think your positions here are well-considered, but to me they to not seem to support your position.

Anyway, I will personally take your thoughts and perspectives to heart. For me they highlight the character of God in valuable ways.

As I said elsewhere in this post, I don't need to be "right" on this issue, nor does anyone for that matter, as it is not terribly relevant in the big picture. But having a church pew filled with thinkers *is* relevant. I think it's important that, as we tell others about Christ, they see that we have doctrine, which we all generally accept, and we have other non-doctrinal beliefs which *ought* to allow for a spectrum of interpretations, which, if Biblically based and thoughtfully applied, can appeal to people across the equally broad spectrum of the human mind. What I have seen many times in churches throughout the world is that we try to destroy the spectrum of the human mind and convince everyone that there really is only one color, which is quite sad because there really are so many beautiful colors; Some people respond better to red, some to blue, others to green. Some to white wine, others to red. Hehe...

If a person has a good relationship with Christ, if they love him, if they seek to understand Him better, God will not judge us (I don't believe) harshly if our experiences have created slightly different personal interpretations of Him.

Well, what you choose to believe is your choice. I'm certainly not going to dislike you for disagreeing with me.

I find it odd though that you will choose to believe something about Chrisut that you admit(by recognizing what I say does point out valuable aspects of Christ's character) does nothing to enhance the perception of His spotless character. I guess that is something I just can't understand as I see defending the absolute spotlessness of Christ's character one of the duties of a Christian. It's the devil's work to smear God's character, and anything we do that is not opposition to that helps the devil.

I do agree that as long as we love Jesus God will forgive our sins of ignorance. But, and it's a large but, we must be open to learning at all times. We can't stay where we once were. We must progress for we cannot remain where we once were. If we do, then it is evidence that we are not listening to the Holy Spirit's influence.

The above does not mean I'm condemning you. I'm bull-headed and stubborn, and it takes me time to accept things that run counter to my natural inclinations too. However, the road must lead ever upward and our natural inclinations are not an excuse to avoid growing in grace.

[Tom Wetmore]

...Now look at Jesus at a different time. (See Matthew 27:34) Gall is an anodyne, a pain reliever. Jesus refused it. Is this a man who would allow His senses to be clouded at any time? Jesus wouldn't even accept a pain reliever on the cross, and you want to believe that this same man would casually drink intoxicating substances? I find this very hard to believe. It doesn't fit His character...

Frequently overlooked by those seeking to use the experience at the cross to bolster a complete teetotaler position is that Jesus was offered the sour wine a second time and he took it the second time just before he died. See John 19:29,30.

"A jar full of sour wine stood there, so they put a sponge full of the sour wine on a hyssop branch and held it to his mouth.

When Jesus had received the sour wine, he said, 'It is finished,' and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit."

[miz3]

Very interesting Tom Wetmore!

[Gary K]

Frequently overlooked by those seeking to use the experience at the cross to bolster a complete teetotaler position is that Jesus was offered the sour wine a second time and he took it the second time just before he died. See John 19:29,30.

"A jar full of sour wine stood there, so they put a sponge full of the sour wine on a hyssop branch and held it to his mouth.

When Jesus had received the sour wine, he said, 'It is finished,' and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit."

Tom,

Your version is in a minority when translating vinegar as "sour wine". The KJV, AKJV, YLT, Webster, and Darby Bibles all translate it as vinegar. That's all I looked right now as I have them as my "parallel Bibles" in my Bible software, but when those versions use a certain word it is usually the most commonly translated word.

Strong's also says vinegar-i.e sour wine. So, let's take a look at what this "sour wine" is. Vinegar is made from the oxidation of ethanol in wine, cider, beer, fermented fruit juice, or nearly any other liquid containing alcohol. IOW's there is no, or very, very little, alcohol in it. It is not something that can be used to alter your state of conciousness.

Even Islam says vinegar is not an intoxicant and is OK to drink, and Islam is very strict about alcohol.

So, nice try, but no cigar. Your attempt at deception does not pass go. But then, you probably already knew vinegar, otherwise known as sour wine, is not an intoxicant.

Thanks for bringing it up though as I'd never read those verses from whatever translation you used. I learned something from the exchange.

[Flyboy]

Well, what you choose to believe is your choice. I'm certainly not going to dislike you for disagreeing with me.

I find it odd though that you will choose to believe something about Chrisut that you admit(by recognizing what I say does point out valuable aspects of Christ's character) does nothing to enhance the perception of His spotless character. I guess that is something I just can't understand as I see defending the absolute spotlessness of Christ's character one of the duties of a Christian. It's the devil's work to smear God's character, and anything we do that is not opposition to that helps the devil.

I do agree that as long as we love Jesus God will forgive our sins of ignorance. But, and it's a large but, we must be open to learning at all times. We can't stay where we once were. We must progress for we cannot remain where we once were. If we do, then it is evidence that we are not listening to the Holy Spirit's influence.

The above does not mean I'm condemning you. I'm bull-headed and stubborn, and it takes me time to accept things that run counter to my natural inclinations too. However, the road must lead ever upward and our natural inclinations are not an excuse to avoid growing in grace.

To clarify, I think your comments provide something to think about, and I think they are useful to consider in understanding Christ.

The difference is that in your mind, if Jesus drank, then he would not be spotless, or that is your implication, above. In my mind, a glass of wine does not blemish one's spotlessness. The idea of complete abstinence within an entire religious organization is an aspect of religious culture that has not definitive textual proof. There is proof against being a drunkard, in many places, but there is no proof against drinking moderately... yet some Christians feel that it wouldn't have been appropriate, a cultural aspect that is a relatively recent social construct. Tea-totalers would have been, I suspect somewhat anachronistic. Just as vegetarianism would have been. Oh.... wait, I didn't mean to open another can of worms, or, vege-worms that is.

Anyway, I agree with the rest of your last post, about personal responsibility. It is not lightly that I consider these issues. In fact, the reason I am so bothered by Christians who don't think is because it *is* so serious! That's why I bring these questions here.

[BobRyan]

Okay, this question has been bothering me for sometime. Actually, I will clarify, it's not the question itself because I don't care if Jesus drank a few glasses of wine from time to time or not. But within the last few years I discovered a verse and when I asked three or four pastors about it they didn't know of the verse and when I showed it to them they gave me an unsatisfactory answer.

Matthew 11:19: “The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Behold, a gluttonous man and a drunkard,

in the Bible the word you are looking at for wine is similar to our word for Beverage. It can mean alcholic or nonalcoholic depending on the context.

The enemies of Christ accused him of dissapation - drinking alcoholic beverage, and of destroying regard for the law of God.

How interesting that many Christians today accuse Christ of having done the very same things.

in Christ,

Bob

[Tom Wetmore]

Your version is in a minority when translating vinegar as "sour wine". The KJV, AKJV, YLT, Webster, and Darby Bibles all translate it as vinegar. That's all I looked right now as I have them as my "parallel Bibles" in my Bible software, but when those versions use a certain word it is usually the most commonly translated word.

Strong's also says vinegar-i.e sour wine. So, let's take a look at what this "sour wine" is. Vinegar is made from the oxidation of ethanol in wine, cider, beer, fermented fruit juice, or nearly any other liquid containing alcohol. IOW's there is no, or very, very little, alcohol in it. It is not something that can be used to alter your state of conciousness.

Even Islam says vinegar is not an intoxicant and is OK to drink, and Islam is very strict about alcohol.

So, nice try, but no cigar. Your attempt at deception does not pass go. But then, you probably already knew vinegar, otherwise known as sour wine, is not an intoxicant...

That's OK. Cigars stink, so you can keep it. But stop blowing smoke up our skirts.

Let's unpack the Greek/Roman context for this substance that was at the scene of the crucifixion. The "vinegar" or sour wine was not the condiment of today. They were not doing a Food Channel cooking show. Do people routinely drink vinegar as a beverage? These were Roman soldiers. Thayer's Lexicon says that oxos was "the mixture of sour wine or vinegar and water which the Roman soldiers were accustomed to drink." Oxos was the Greek word used to describe what the Roman soldiers would have called posca. I doubt they would have had a supply of cooking vinegar to quench their thirst. This was the cheap booze of the Roman soldiers.

The word posca is Latin for an unfamiliar beverage (not cooking condiment) among the Greek-speaking people of the eastern Mediterranean region where sweet wines were the norm. Since the Greeks didn't have a word for posca, sources written in Greek, such as Plutarch and the Gospels, use the word oxos, more literally "sharp" or "sour".

So what was posca? It was the cheap wine commonly drunk by Roman soldiers. Why was it cheap? It was spoiled wine mixed with water and herbs to make it more palatable. Basically they reused wine spoiled by faulty storage. The good wine was saved for the officers. The spoiled wine was not wasted, it was given to the Roman foot soldiers in their rations. You may be right that taste-wise it was a lot like vinegar. It wasn't good sweet wine. It had spoiled and tasted bad or sour. It was bad soured wine, but wine nonetheless.

As for Jesus' first refusal of it mixed with gall... Gall was a poison. It was given to the crucifixion victim to speed up the death process, like the practice of breaking their legs or stabbing them with knives and spears. It probably did have a sedative effect, but this was no act of mercy for the victim. It was to get it over with quicker so the soldiers could leave.

Jesus refused it the first time, not because he wanted to feel the full pain. He tasted the poison mixed with the nasty wine. It was not time and that was not the way he was to die. While it is unknown whether the second offer of the posca had gall in it, notice that Jesus did die immediately after taking that drink.

[Gary K]

To clarify, I think your comments provide something to think about, and I think they are useful to consider in understanding Christ.

The difference is that in your mind, if Jesus drank, then he would not be spotless, or that is your implication, above. In my mind, a glass of wine does not blemish one's spotlessness. The idea of complete abstinence within an entire religious organization is an aspect of religious culture that has not definitive textual proof.

1. As I pointed out before, Jesus' entire life here on earth was preparation for His return to heaven to be our High Priest. His entire life was the "before the priest went to the temple to perform his priestly duties" for Him.

2. Jesus Himself gave the instructions to the Isrealite priests that they should never drink alcoholic beverages before going to the temple to do their duty as a priest. If they did, they were to killed right then and there. It was obviously a very serious sin for a priest to break this prohibition.

3. Since the laws regarding the priesthood had not changed since Christ gave them He was also bound by this law. To drink alcohol during His lifetime would have been for Him to sin and would have disqualified Him to be our High Priest.

4. Jesus lived according to all the laws of God. The Bible tells us He did. Did He break this law?

[miz3]

1. As I pointed out before, Jesus' entire life here on earth was preparation for His return to heaven to be our High Priest. His entire life was the "before the priest went to the temple to perform his priestly duties" for Him.

2. Jesus Himself gave the instructions to the Isrealite priests that they should never drink alcoholic beverages before going to the temple to do their duty as a priest. If they did, they were to killed right then and there. It was obviously a very serious sin for a priest to break this prohibition.

3. Since the laws regarding the priesthood had not changed since Christ gave them He was also bound by this law. To drink alcohol during His lifetime would have been for Him to sin and would have disqualified Him to be our High Priest.

4. Jesus lived according to all the laws of God. The Bible tells us He did. Did He break this law?

This is Typical SDA logic. This is twisting the Word of God by attaching your "unique" Doctrine (which has no Biblical support) to a Biblical Principle. This kind a tactic is used by SDA when all else fails.

The problem is, Gary K., you initial premise is wrong thus making the rest of you logic wrong.

Sorry, for butting in Flyboy.

[Tom Wetmore]

Yes, that is a bit of a stretch, Gary.

Did he live here as a Levite? Or a Nazarene?

Did he die as a priest or the sacrificial Lamb?

As Flyboy has already pointed out, the clear implication of the verse with which he opened this thread is that Jesus' critics saw him tip a cup of wine with sinners and exaggerated to call him a wino, a drunkard. The kernel of truth of their false witness was that they had seen him drink at least a sip of wine, the stuff served by the sinners he was eating and drinking with. For them dining with unclean sinners was worse than getting drunk or being a glutton, really.

Stop trying to spin it to contemporary Adventist lifestyle standards that really aren't Biblically based, but EGW based. Nothing wrong with us having our own standards and peculiar traditions, standards and customs. But let's be honest and not try to twist Scripture to try to make it seem to be the basis. Let's be honest that EGW is our source of Adventist tradition, custom, lifestyle standards. Nothing wrong with that.

Don't you realize that twisting, spinning and exaggerating facts is the same kind false witness that Jesus was condemning in the OP verse?

[miz3]

Good job Tom!