quote:

Originally posted by patw:
… David in 2 Samuel 12, addresses this very thing with the death of his baby with Bathsheba, saying he will see his child again in heaven. According to this scripture, we see as it was written, children/babies will be with the Lord. …

You’ll have to explain that to me. I’m not seeing it.

quote:

Originally posted by mark123:

quote:

Originally posted by patw:
… David in 2 Samuel 12, addresses this very thing with the death of his baby with Bathsheba, saying he will see his child again in heaven. According to this scripture, we see as it was written, children/babies will be with the Lord. …

You’ll have to explain that to me. I’m not seeing it.

In verse 23, David says "I can go to him but he cannot return to me", meaning David had faith in God that he would see his child again in heaven. David will be in heaven, as he was a follower/ favored with the Lord, as Jesus was from his lineage as promised. So in heaven-David, "(I) can go to him" has new meaning. That is why David no longer fasted and wept when his child died. By David's own testimony and through his actions, that child went to heaven and he knew it, so he will see that child again in his glorified body. David felt peace with this, as he went on his normal eating habits and did not weep.

Like I said, God is a fair God and just. Too many religions have made up many things that are not Biblical and people hand them down through the ages. Not that I am picking on anyone but where in the Bible does it say anything about baptism of an infant? And what is it's meaning? Water baptism is what a believer does to show others he wants/commits to follow God. It was never a contingency on salvation in the slightest. You don't need water baptism to be saved as we are baptized by His/Jesus blood,(Matthew 26:28,Revelations 1:5) and Ephesians 2:8-9 makes it very clear we are saved by grace alone. If we say we need to be saved by some type of water baptism as well for our part of salvation, means that Christ's death means nothing. His death was enough and even He said, "It is finished". Meaning everything He set out to do in order to provide salvation for us was completed on the cross. All we need to do is believe.

Just to put it into perspective/my background, I grew up in a Catholic church when I was younger in the 70's, St. Malachy's Church in Fort Lauderdale, as my mother worked there as their secretary and we went there for many years. I went to CCD and was working on becoming an alter boy. My father was not a religious man at that time, so to speak but someone he worked with asked him to go to his church and I went with him. After going to the new church/assembly a while, it raised many questions for all of us about what we were taught prior. Praise the Lord, eventually my whole family became saved and we then went to a non-denominational assembly/church, the Fort Lauderdale Bible Chapel.

To get back to the point, man, in order to design a way to worship God, has made up things/religions/views that are not in the Bible and man has decided by his own rules/ways how he/we should worship. There are many false doctrines/religions out there under the name of Christianity, that do not adhere to the Bible and what it says and does not say. When looking for answers, we need to adhere/look to the only book we have, which is the Bible. But again some bibles have had things changed in order to suit man's desires/wishes which is also wrong. That is why we need to adhere to a Bible based on the Greek and Hebrew writings that we still have today.

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
<<snip>> A man is, in my opinion, as likely to be nudged closer to being saved reading our discussion here as he would be attending most church services. Well done, Sigforum.

Agree 100%. I have been struggling with getting off of my duff and getting back to church on Sunday morning... any church that teaches the truth! This discussion has further encouraged me to stop using foul language, end the use of alcohol, and focus on Christ my Savior moving forward in 2025. Well done indeed!

quote:

Originally posted by bronicabill:
This discussion has further encouraged me to..., end the use of alcohol, ...

What was Jesus' first miracle?

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:

quote:

Originally posted by bronicabill:
This discussion has further encouraged me to..., end the use of alcohol, ...

What was Jesus' first miracle?

I’ve never understood Christians who absolutely prohibit alcohol. I can understand moderating it, not getting drunk, etc… but Jesus himself thought it important!

Jesus Christ made water into wine. Which by biblical definition was juice. He would never have made something alcoholic. Especially when the Bible says that they had already ran out of what they had.

Some people decide they are better-off avoiding alcohol completely, and rely on Jesus' help to abstain from it.

quote:

Jesus Christ made water into wine. Which by biblical definition was juice.

Wait... what?
I've never heard that the biblical definition of wine was juice...
I'll have some more juice, please!

The biblical (Greek) word used was oinos, which is translated to English as wine.

You can interpret it any way you like, but the man made wine.

the Bible also says to not be drunk with wine. I've never had enough juice to get drunk....and dont think I'd want to have that much!

quote:

Originally posted by PowerSurge:
Which by biblical definition was juice.

I have seen many claims that something virtually all English translations of various Bibles say isn’t actually what it means, but that particular one is a first for me.

How do you know that’s the proper translation? What is the source?

I ask because I was once advised to learn Greek to be able to read the gospels in the original as they were written. If I read oinos (οίνος) that is normally translated as wine, how would I have known that it meant juice as you translate it?

Alcohol consumption is a different thing for different people. Some people may struggle with moderating it, and are potentially faced with an all-or-nothing decision. If they choose the nothing route, they'll no-doubt lean heavily on their faith. It's a big deal for them, and they'll mention it in circumstances like this discussion thread, as it is something very closely related to their faith.

Those who don't have trouble moderating it may feel that these folks are implying that alcohol abstinence is something they consider an essential aspect of good Christian behavior. I don't think that's the case. Of course there are exceptions but, I think, more often than not, that these folks don't think everyone should avoid alcohol.

PowerSurge and bronicabill have both made multiple contributions to the discussion, which are much appreciated. I don't think either of them think 100% abstinence from alcohol is required of Christians. If they do, then I hope they make it known, and we can discuss it. It'd be interesting to hear their viewpoints.

I, for one, am envious (shame on me!) of the naturally moderate drinkers. For now, I fall into the all-or-nothing camp. I opt for nothing, and am grateful for the Lord's help in that endeavor.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:

quote:

Originally posted by PowerSurge:
Which by biblical definition was juice.

I have seen many claims that something virtually all English translations of various Bibles say isn’t actually what it means, but that particular one is a first for me.

How do you know that’s the proper translation? What is the source?

I don't think there are any perfect translations. Each translation is backed by a religious sponsor, and each sponsor has their slant on particular interpretations on very many fronts. Some are better than others, but I don't think there is a "best" for that specific reason.

The previous poster who said studying older, more originating texts, are more closer to the truth, even though much of those are also translations themselves with extra stuff added for whatever belief or purpose that were on their minds at the time. And.... their sponsors as well... since those guys didn't work for free either.

That's why there are so many straight up contradictions, and apparent contradictions, in the best translations available, with difficult answers for otherwise simple questions.

Regarding alcohol, I don't think all the stories in the Bible regarding drink, juices or spirits, are about alcohol directly, they are just part of the story to make a more important point.

If the Bible were just a bunch of rules regarding this or that, like wine, forbidden meats, working or not working on certain days, and of course notwithstanding obvious sin, I doubt you would need any faith for any type of atonement and resulting salvation.

I added to my post above, but as the Gospels were originally written in Greek and (evidently) that word has always been translated to English as wine, it does not seem to me there would have been much cause for confusion about what the original word referred to.

But I will leave it at that. This thread is not about Biblical analysis. (Although I didn't start it. )

quote:

Originally posted by patw:

quote:

Originally posted by mark123:

quote:

Originally posted by patw:
… David in 2 Samuel 12, addresses this very thing with the death of his baby with Bathsheba, saying he will see his child again in heaven. According to this scripture, we see as it was written, children/babies will be with the Lord. …

You’ll have to explain that to me. I’m not seeing it.

In verse 23, David says "I can go to him but he cannot return to me", meaning David had faith in God that he would see his child again in heaven. …

It doesn’t say anything about heaven. David is just saying he will follow his son to the grave. I’m going to bow out though as this is a good thread and i have a penchant for riling the catholics.

I hope you’ll consider my argument though. Even the New Testament shows our destiny isn’t heaven.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:

quote:

Jesus Christ made water into wine. Which by biblical definition was juice.

Wait... what?
I've never heard that the biblical definition of wine was juice...
I'll have some more juice, please!

It's a common argument by the holiness movement. It doesn’t hold up against scrutiny though. They wouldn’t even drink coca colas in a bottle because they thought the bottles could be mistaken as a beer bottle.

The wine-was-really-just-juice argument doesn’t even make sense.

You put grape juice into jars and containers in that climate and era with no refrigeration and in a week you have vinegar. They’re all drinking vinegar?

No, winemaking was a preservation technique and it was wine, probably just not at the alcohol levels of modern wine.

Grapes were placed in a “wine press”. Not a juice press. There is no such thing as a holy lexicon. What do you get when you press grapes in a wine press? Wine. Which is what we now call grape juice. Like many words, “wine” has more than one meaning. It is even defined as such in the Webster’s 1828 dictionary.

Why in the world would Jesus Christ give guests at the wedding more alcoholic wine when they had already drank up what they had and make them drunk or even more drunk than they were? The answer is he wouldn’t.

Wine


Anyway, I grew up in a Protestant Church and had faith as a child. My faith is gone, I want to believe but nothing has swayed me that direction. I still go to church with my wife and live a moral life. We even did a Holy Land tour not long ago, I learned a lot but came away with more doubt and questions

I suspect the Bible was bastardized by Kings and the Church to control people

quote:

Originally posted by PowerSurge:


Like many words, “wine” has more than one meaning.

It literally does not.

These events were a long time ago and many of the accounts recorded many years after they occurred rather than in real time as we are used to. My attitude on details like the meaning of wine or the color of skin or the nature of characters lives not actually written, is that they have not as much bearing on salvation as the simple principles of the gospel. So I don’t argue about them. It only creates division in Christianity which weakens the Lord’s mission. His method of gentle persuasion and spiritual inspiration to personal salvation is inconsistent with contention. It looks bad to the casual observer whom we should be working to persuade toward Christ. For the record, I’m not scold nor condescending here. It’s just an expression of my own policy.