Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's interesting logic.
Jesus never sinned.
Drinking "to the point of excess" is a sin.
Therefore - Jesus never drank "to the point of excess".
Now you just have to supply the proof for the first two claims. This thread has been about the 2nd claim, so it would be premature to use the 2nd claim as a FACT in an argument FOR that fact before the proof is given. Do you see? Oh my head..
I like that logic, though! Let's do it again....
Jesus never sinned.
Getting an abortion is a sin.
Therefore - Jesus never got an abortion.
Hee hee! Again, the logic works - and it doesn't even need a proof for the second claim, let alone the first claim.
How about these for premises:
Jesus never sinned.
Jesus drank wine.
Getting drunk on wine is sin.
Therefore, Jesus never got drunk on wine.
Course, proof of all premises is still required to prove the conclusion.
That's interesting logic.
Jesus never sinned.
Drinking "to the point of excess" is a sin.
Therefore - Jesus never drank "to the point of excess".
Now you just have to supply the proof for the first two claims. This thread has been about the 2nd claim, so it would be premature to use the 2nd claim as a FACT in an argument FOR that fact before the proof is given. Do you see? Oh my head..
I like that logic, though! Let's do it again....
Jesus never sinned.
Getting an abortion is a sin.
Therefore - Jesus never got an abortion.
Hee hee! Again, the logic works - and it doesn't even need a proof for the second claim, let alone the first claim.
Here is the proof:
Hebrews 4:15 For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.
If Jesus had sinned even once, He would have been disqualified from going to the cross to die a substitutionary death on our behalf. In order to purchase our freedom from the slave market of sin, He Himself had to be free from sin.
Ephesians 5:18 And do not get drunk with wine, for that is dissipation, but be filled with the Spirit.
The believer is commanded to be filled with the Spirit. Being filled with the Spirit is in contradistinction to being drunk. The believer cannot be drunk and filled with the Spirit at the same time. When the believer is filled with the Holy Spirit he is in status que spirituality. When he is drunk or engaging in some other sin, he is in status que carnality. They are mutually exclusive. To disobey the command to be filled with the Spirit is a sin.
It is not a sin to drink. But it is a sin to get drunk.
Hebrews 4:15 For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.
If Jesus had sinned even once, He would have been disqualified from going to the cross to die a substitutionary death on our behalf. In order to purchase our freedom from the slave market of sin, He Himself had to be free from sin.
Ephesians 5:18 And do not get drunk with wine, for that is dissipation, but be filled with the Spirit.
The believer is commanded to be filled with the Spirit. Being filled with the Spirit is in contradistinction to being drunk. The believer cannot be drunk and filled with the Spirit at the same time. When the believer is filled with the Holy Spirit he is in status que spirituality. When he is drunk or engaging in some other sin, he is in status que carnality. They are mutually exclusive. To disobey the command to be filled with the Spirit is a sin.
It is not a sin to drink. But it is a sin to get drunk.
I missed the part where "dissipation" means "sin" (other, more modern, translations yield "debauchery" rather than "dissipation").
Was the writer making a clever rhetorical point, or was he establishing something as sinful? Given his usual style of writing, the former seems highly likely. Just because a writer in the New Testament says not to do something rhetorically, does not automatically make that into a sin.
Further in the letter, the writer exhorts slaves to obey their masters "with fear and trembling". Would doing otherwise be a new sin, created by the writer of the letter to the Ephesians? Or again - was he making a rhetorical equation between earthly servitude and spiritual servitude - the "Fear of the LORD"?
I don't know - I would be very careful in attributing rhetorical devices into a "new Law", as it appears is happening here. That would seem to go against the basic premise of "the letter kills, but the spirit enlivens" (or however you want to quote that particular one) in relationship to the Old Covenant.
Its funny that Rome requires priests to be celebrate, and yet from the scriptures it is clear that Peter had a wife, and that Paul says later on that when many wander from the faith, one of the false doctrines will be that they will forbid people to marry. The husband of one wife also makes it pretty clear, that Bishops/Pastors/Elders were married.
Mk 1:30 Simon’s mother-in-law was in bed with a fever, and they told Jesus about her
1Ti 4:1 The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 1Ti 4:2 Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 1Ti 4:3 They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth.
Hebrews 4:15 For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.
If Jesus had sinned even once, He would have been disqualified from going to the cross to die a substitutionary death on our behalf. In order to purchase our freedom from the slave market of sin, He Himself had to be free from sin.
Ephesians 5:18 And do not get drunk with wine, for that is dissipation, but be filled with the Spirit.
The believer is commanded to be filled with the Spirit. Being filled with the Spirit is in contradistinction to being drunk. The believer cannot be drunk and filled with the Spirit at the same time. When the believer is filled with the Holy Spirit he is in status que spirituality. When he is drunk or engaging in some other sin, he is in status que carnality. They are mutually exclusive. To disobey the command to be filled with the Spirit is a sin.
It is not a sin to drink. But it is a sin to get drunk.
Its funny that Rome requires priests to be celebrate, and yet from the scriptures it is clear that Peter had a wife, and that Paul says later on that when many wander from the faith, one of the false doctrines will be that they will forbid people to marry. The husband of one wife also makes it pretty clear, that Bishops/Pastors/Elders were married.
Mk 1:30 Simon’s mother-in-law was in bed with a fever, and they told Jesus about her
1Ti 4:1 The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 1Ti 4:2 Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 1Ti 4:3 They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth.
From Got Questions.com Question: "Was the Apostle Paul married?"
Answer: The Bible never says whether Paul was married or not. Some think that he was at one time based on what he said in 1 Corinthians 9:5, "Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas?" If Paul was married at one time, his wife likely passed away considering he never mentions her in any of his writings. Paul declared that he had the gift of celibacy in 1 Corinthians 7:1-7.
Paul’s statement to the unmarried and widows in the Corinthian church gives evidence that he was not married at the time of his writing the letter: “Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion” (1 Corinthians 7:8-9). Clearly, he was not married at that time, but whether he married afterward is also a matter of speculation.
Some believe that the Apostle Paul was married because history tells us that a member of the Sanhedrin was required to be married. However, Paul never stated that he was a member of the Sanhedrin. He definitely seemed to be on the path, "I was advancing in Judaism beyond many Jews of my own age and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers" (Galatians 1:14). However, Paul might not have advanced that far before He converted to Christ.
So, was the Apostle Paul married? It is possible that he was at one time, but again, the Bible does not specifically say.
Katie
Wine was used for medicinal purposes in the time of Jesus. Jesus told Peter to drink wine for his stomach's sake. Now we have medicine for that, or cola so wine isn't needed. I don't know of anyone that can drink and not get drunk at least some of the time. The proper course of action in my opinion is to obstain from all alcoholic drinks.
Fundamentalists usually know the bible quite well. Or maybe you should have a talk to your preacher for having deceive you during his anti catholic sermon. Read above, it was already explained.
Perhaps the desire to be anti Catholic is so strong that there blindness to certain passages of the bible that support celibacy.
The Chip On The Shoulder
Learn this now before you are older:
Don’t go through life with a chip on your shoulder,
Always aggrieved and ever offended,
Fancying wrongs that are not intended.
Let not a sense of humor desert you,
Take it that nobody means to hurt you,
Find no insult in idle chatter,
Pass it over; it doesn’t matter.
Look for the best in everybody,
Value the wool, forget the shoddy;
Get in the habit of liking people.
Love is the spire on every steeple.
Wine was used for medicinal purposes in the time of Jesus. Jesus told Peter to drink wine for his stomach's sake. Now we have medicine for that, or cola so wine isn't needed. I don't know of anyone that can drink and not get drunk at least some of the time. The proper course of action in my opinion is to obstain from all alcoholic drinks.
I thought it was Paul who told Timothy to drink wine for his stomach?
I don't think it's a sin to drink wine or any other alcoholic beverage. As long as we do things in moderation, we're okay.
Overeating is a sin also. (Boy am I in trouble!)
Katie
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This thread has been about the 2nd claim, so it would be premature to use the 2nd claim as a FACT in an argument FOR that fact before the proof is given. Do you see? Oh my head..
