Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leaf:
Wait, wait... so on this thread, mousethief is appealing to the plain meaning of Scripture, while NJA is arguing from his tradition?

I need a drink.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
No no. He spelled it "matey" and it only applied to bishops.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by NJA:
Alcohol is a patch for the weakness and failings of the "old life" once you get the new (and live it) you really don't need alcohol and after a while you find you really don't want it!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by NJA:
Proverbs 31 is clear when you beleive that Christians (people that have received God's Spirit) are Kings.
Failure to accept this and just take the verses as referring to natutral kings and add that it should apply to motorists is just bad hermaneutics .. like Nicodemus asking if he needs to re-enter the womb to be born again.

---

This post is so discouraging. The only way that Proverbs 31 can mean what you clearly want it to mean is if Christians are LITERALLY kings. Christians do not necssarily have ongoing responsibility for the government of a country, which they clearly would if they were kings. To accuse people of bad hermeneutics when they don't "get" your really non-obvious reading of Scripture is just ridiculous - it really helps no-one, least of all yourself.

If your interpretation of this passage is so clear, then why is this connection not spelt out in the New Testament (when it really ought to be if you're right)? e.g. "but now that you have received God's Spirit, it is not for you to drink alcohol, even in moderation"

(It is getting to the stage where I'm despairing of useful discussion coming out of this thread. I'd be inclined to agree with Ender's Shadow on this - if we simply make fun of NJA's untenable position, then the persecution mentality will quite likely set in, and convince him that he must be right. It might be good fun, with little offense meant, but I don't think it's what Purgatory discussions are for).

--------------------
humblebum

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by humblebum:
if we simply make fun of NJA's untenable position, then the persecution mentality will quite likely set in, and convince him that he must be right.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by humblebum:
if we simply make fun of NJA's untenable position, then the persecution mentality will quite likely set in, and convince him that he must be right.

---

Unfortunately I think the same will happen if we soberly disagree with forceful argument. He's convinced he is right and I doubt anything will change that. The only justification I can see for continuing to post on this thread is that there's some mild interest in understanding how the argument works. The belief that we might save NJA from his untenable position is as hopeless a motive as his belief that he might convert us to his brand of christianity.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
Unfortunately I think the same will happen if we soberly disagree with forceful argument. He's convinced he is right and I doubt anything will change that. The only justification I can see for continuing to post on this thread is that there's some mild interest in understanding how the argument works. The belief that we might save NJA from his untenable position is as hopeless a motive as his belief that he might convert us to his brand of christianity.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
Speaking strictly for myself (following on Leaf), the humor came from the fact that NJA and others of his inclination usually argue that the "plain sense" of scripture is obvious to any reasonable person. To see him resorting to extreme symbolic exegesis (or eisegesis, actually) to get the desired result was amusing. Because that's exactly what conservatives routinely accuse liberals of doing. I wasn't involved in the discussion, but I was enjoying the spectacle.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
But he's free to tee-total, if he likes, more health to him.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by humblebum:
Scroll up the thread for more info Sebby.

NJA's take on the Wedding at Cana is that it didn't really matter that the guests were celebrating with alcohol, since they weren't "Spirit-filled Believers" (so to speak).

Jesus might have even given them more alcoholic wine - with a clear conscience as well, because he hadn't gotten round to giving them the Holy Spirit, so imbibing one of the next best things wasn't so bad.

(I don't think this is the standard Christian teetotaller viewpoint, but it is one view).

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

So Jesus gave them a bad thing... except somehow it wasn't bad for them because they weren't Christians... so while it's 'bad' it can't be SINFUL, because otherwise that would mean that some things are only sinful for saved people, for the unsaved it's not actually a sin (and therefore something they don't need saving from)... and also, it would have meant Jesus used a miracle to create a temptation...

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally Posted by ken:
I can;t think why the same logic wouldn't apply to Christians who use other worldly or fleshly pleasures. Cuddling a teddy bear? Eating expensive food? Watching TV (apart perhaps from news)? Reading novels? Masturbation? Dancing? Smoking? Gambling? Horseracing? Marmalade on toast? Tea? Chocolate? Fashionable clothes? Marriage? Sex other than for procreation? Cuddles without sex? Music other than church music? Illegal drugs? Sport? Arguing with strangers online? Growing flowers rather than food in your garden?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Christian Agnostic:
I really can't say what is going on in NJA's head and heart. I don't believe he's trinitarian, so I tend to think that he's barely, if at all, a part of the Body of Christ,

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Christian Agnostic:
I really can't say what is going on in NJA's head and heart. I don't believe he's trinitarian, so I tend to think that he's barely, if at all, a part of the Body of Christ,

---

Is that meant to be an ironic reflection of his argument? Because I don't find it written anywhere that you get saved for understanding trinitarian theology. Or for subscribing to any doctrine at all. That's just replacing one work with another.

(Agreement with the rest of your post of course)

---

Maybe I should change my screen name to Jonathan Swift

--------------------
Words to the wise: Don't read Kierkegaard when you're 16, and always set B.S. detectors to 11. "How can I sing a strange song in the Lord's land?"

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:
I think NJA has left this thread. His last post was on Saturday, June 12.

Moo

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:
I think NJA has left this thread. His last post was on Saturday, June 12.

Moo

---

Probably gone to the pub.

---

carrying a large placard with a badly-spelled quotation from scripture in wobbly capital letters.

--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!

Posted                      

quote:

---

17In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good. 18In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. 19No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God's approval. 20When you come together, it is not the Lord's Supper you eat, 21for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk. 22Don't you have homes 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 praise you for this? Certainly not!

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
...
1) What were people getting drunk on at these suppers (v.20-21)?
2) What sort of drink is Paul suggesting one may drink at home (v.22)?

It seems to me that Paul is saying 1) that drunkenness at church meetings through excess consumption of alcoholic wine invalidates the eucharist at those meetings. And 2) that the drinking of wine (presumably alcoholic on the basis of v.21) is an acceptable practice in the home.

How do you read the text?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by NJA:
In our church we often find this. People take a whole to see that they no longer have any need for alcohol, nicotine or their old religious ideas & traditions. By focusing on the new rather than just saying "don't do x, y z" we help them see the new Life and don't need us to tell them not to.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
.. or their old religious ideas & traditions. ..This sounds frighteningly like the modus operandi of a wife-beater, or a cult. Separate you from all your old way of life and program you with ours. Do they not need their old friends, either?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Having read most of pages 1 and 2 and bits of three I'm going risk repeating what someone else may have already said. 1 Cor 11.17-22 says,

quote:

---

17In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good. 18In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. 19No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God's approval. 20When you come together, it is not the Lord's Supper you eat, 21for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk. 22Don't you have homes 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 praise you for this? Certainly not!

---

So, NJA, two questions:

1) What were people getting drunk on at these suppers (v.20-21)?
2) What sort of drink is Paul suggesting one may drink at home (v.22)?

It seems to me that Paul is saying 1) that drunkenness at church meetings through excess consumption of alcoholic wine invalidates the eucharist at those meetings. And 2) that the drinking of wine (presumably alcoholic on the basis of v.21) is an acceptable practice in the home.

How do you read the text?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by NJA:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
...
1) What were people getting drunk on at these suppers (v.20-21)?
2) What sort of drink is Paul suggesting one may drink at home (v.22)?

It seems to me that Paul is saying 1) that drunkenness at church meetings through excess consumption of alcoholic wine invalidates the eucharist at those meetings. And 2) that the drinking of wine (presumably alcoholic on the basis of v.21) is an acceptable practice in the home.

How do you read the text?

---

Good point Numpty, I read it that they were getting drunk on alcohilic wine in meetings and Paul is saying if you want to get drunk, do it at home.

I'd say Paul is allowing them to drink alcohol at home, not condoning or encouraging it.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

The Corinthians were still immature Christians

---

quote:

---

in some ways worse than the heathen.

---

quote:

---

Paul knew they wouldn't be able to accept the saying "no alcohol" so he helps them in other areas so that they will see for themselves.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Thanks Numpty for that exegesis. I think we can draw a further conclusion. When Paul established the church at Corinth, he would have taught them to celebrate the Lord's supper. At that point he had TOTAL control over what happened at that event; for all the people in this new church, it was something completely new. Therefore he would have had the opportunity to introduce the use of any liquid that he felt like, and discourage the use of any he didn't. Despite that, the Corinthians are using alcoholic wine for the Lord's supper. Therefore the only reasonable interpretation is that Paul taught them to do so. It's surely inconceivable that he would have done so in the knowledge that such a liquid was inappropriate for their celebrations of the Lord's death... It therefore clearly follows that the use of alcohol for the Lord's supper has apostolic warrant.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by the gnome:
Maybe I'm wrong about this, but doesn't the Gospel carefully avoid saying that the miracle at Cana actually produced wine? Aren't we just told that the people responded to it as if it were wine?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
[T]he use of alcohol for the Lord's supper has apostolic warrant.

---

quote:

---

I remain sympathetic to the concerns of Temperance movements in terms of the damage that alcohol does and the value of Christians modelling ways of having fun without its aid. But the legalistic attempts to impose not using it as sign of being a 'spiritual' Christian is fundamentally flawed and deeply unhealthy.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by NJA:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
.. or their old religious ideas & traditions. ..This sounds frighteningly like the modus operandi of a wife-beater, or a cult. Separate you from all your old way of life and program you with ours. Do they not need their old friends, either?

---

Only to your way of thinking.
Separation is sometimes essential.

Failure to recognise the power of ingrained beliefs and habits may mean that you yourself are still under their influence.

Revelation does warn about people who are "drunk" on the wine of the spiritual fornication of false Christianity. Like literal wine it obscures the judgement & gives people a false sense of security.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:

quote:

---

Paul knew they wouldn't be able to accept the saying "no alcohol" so he helps them in other areas so that they will see for themselves.

---

This isn't in the text of 1 Corinthians and cannot be arrived at by reading the text of 1 Corinthians. It is, therefore, merely speculative. It has been illegitimately read into the text and, on that basis, must be rejected as false.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by NJA:
The history of "Christianity" is littered with people who grabbed hold of 1 or 2 verses at the expense of others.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by NJA:
I disagree with this form of exegesis, i.e. basing doctrine on one passage and refusing to temper it by what is said on the subject elsewhere.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by NJA:
I disagree with this form of exegesis, i.e. basing doctrine on one passage and refusing to temper it by what is said on the subject elsewhere.

I didn't read it into the text.
Paul had spent 3 years with the Corinthians, they knew masses more than in this one letter. The other scriptures must be understood also.

Consider:
"Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee?
Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?" (John 7:41-42)

- see how people took one scripture and jumped to the wrong conclusion.

Many others do the same with Genesis 6 & 7 that seem to preach a global flood.

The history of "Christianity" is littered with people who grabbed hold of 1 or 2 verses at the expense of others.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by NJA:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:

quote:

---

Paul knew they wouldn't be able to accept the saying "no alcohol" so he helps them in other areas so that they will see for themselves.

---

This isn't in the text of 1 Corinthians and cannot be arrived at by reading the text of 1 Corinthians. It is, therefore, merely speculative. It has been illegitimately read into the text and, on that basis, must be rejected as false.

---

I disagree with this form of exegesis, i.e. basing doctrine on one passage and refusing to temper it by what is said on the subject elsewhere.

I didn't read it into the text.

---

quote:

---

"Paul knew they wouldn't be able to accept the saying "no alcohol" so he helps them in other areas so that they will see for themselves."

---