Is it a sin to drink alcohol

Oppie is using apologist material from Samuele Bacchiocchi a 7th day Appventist.

Listen, if the KJV was good enough for Jesus then it's good enuff for me.

.... and Jesus looked like Peter Frampton, and had a British accent.... really.... it's in all the movies...

And carried a sheep with Him everywhere He went.

I thought that was Mary?

Little Bo Peep, peeps....

I don't know why you would think some statement about fruit being preserved fresh 100 years in Josephus would prove anything one way or another about drinking wine in Biblical times, But you should actually look up primary sources. Your source there is misleading. He leaves out the part about enjoying wine with song being forbidden after the Sanhedrin was disbanded.

Here is a quote from Sotah 48a according to
http://www.come-and-hear.com/sotah/sotah_48.html
" WHEN THE SANHEDRIN CEASED [TO FUNCTION], SONG CEASED FROM THE PLACES OF FEASTING; AS IT IS SAID, THEY SHALL NOT DRINK WINE WITH A SONG ETC "

Compare with Mishneh Sotah 9,11 according to https://www.sefaria.org/Mishnah_Sot...ide=Torat_Emet_357&with=Version Open&lang2=en
"When the Sanhedrin [highest court, charged with deciding cases and appeals that had national significance. It was comprised of 71 scholars who had received the full traditional rabbinical ordination, and its decisions fixed Jewish practice for subsequent generations.] ceased, song ceased from the places of feasting, as it is said, “They drink their wine without song” (Isaiah 24:9). "

The Sanhedrin was still around throughout the end of Acts and beyond until later in the first century. They tried our Lord and show up in Acts.

I hear they stopped playing instruments in the synagogue to mourn the destruction of the temple and later justified it as a temptation to violate sabbath by changing a string if it broke.

Pr 31:4 It is not for kings, O Lemuel, it is not for kings to drink wine; nor for princes strong drink:

Impairment begins with the first drink. Yet it has medicinal purposes. What a paradox.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Right, because Jesus spoke in classical Greek instead of koine Greek.

In other words, your reasoning is flawed. Also, your opinion on the matter is quite thoroughly irrelevant.

So you assume in that wedding party people save a grape and press it every 2 hours?

It is not in the Bible brother, so it is only your assumption too.

So you believe eve the word wine in the Bible have the same meaning as as the word wine today and it is mean alcoholic grape juice?

Yes

Reminds me of this:

Luke 16:8
For the sons of this world are more shrewd in their generation than the sons of light.

Talk about trying to 'drown' the OP. Can we move back to OP please?

Why do you bring the things out of your heart and label them as coming from mine, again that is folly.

If you are going to ask any questions then maybe you should ask yourself where did the thought that Proverbs is a wicked man's advice come from.

As far as your question regarding my idea of wisdom, if that would be my folly to give you instruction on getting wisdom seeing there if nothing in your hand, or is there

No, your question is based in a incorrect apriori (false assumption, ie "every 2 hours"). I did not assume what you thought I assumed. I assumed no such thing as you proffered for my position. Straw man.

Strawman.

Actually, all the places I previously cited do, and including yourself (though you might not think so).

I am going to recommend a book to you, instead of citing over 635 pages of it. Here it is.


It demonstrates, that the so-called 'archaic' words of the KJB, are used in everyday modern English around the world, in everyday use, newspapers, videos, and even in the 'modern' versions (NIV, ASV, RV, etc, of which I may also demonstrate for you) etc. All with citation. You can find it VancePublications, or AVPublications. If you would like specific examples I can cite them from this source with page reference, as I own this book, and have it in hand as I type.

If you do not prefer to read, you can simply view the following, for a short summation of such things.

That video is part of a series that is the most biased piece of hogwash I have had the misfortune of viewing.

i'm asking questions - because i am not able to say what you are thinking and believing.
why don't you say 'no' or 'yes' ?
why leave it to my imagination? why leave me to have to make inferences?

it came from people saying that alcohol is sinful, and from tempting people to sin being sinful.
who is it that gives people evil substances? a wicked man or a righteous man?
people are often quoting part of chapter 31 saying, see, it says wine is not for kings. and they say 'we are kings therefore it is sin for us'
but the very same scripture says kings should plead the cause of the poor and needy. the very same scripture says give wine and strong drink to the brokenhearted & destitute, so they can forget their misery.
so it is a very natural and straightforward conclusion that if one has the position all alcohol is sin, then it follows that giving alcohol to anyone is sin. this is what they say about John 2, 'surely Jesus didn't actually make wine He made mountain dew®' because it would be sin if Jesus gave anyone wine. that's the argument, and it's been made several times over in the last 30 pages. to give a person alcohol is wicked.
but this is what Proverbs 31:6-7 says. give beer to the brokenhearted. give wine to those in misery. let them drink and forget.

how is this reconciled?
you told me, it is reconciled by reading it as though the language is not what the language is. you say, this is reconciled by the Bible saying exactly the opposite of what the Bible says -- you say that it 'should be apparent' that the imperative word is not an imperative word. vis a vis.

does that really not make sense to you how logic demands the conclusion i'm asking you about?
i am not accusing you; i am asking you. because reason leads me to this conclusion from what i have read, yet i can scarcely believe what i am hearing! that is why i am asking, is this true? is this really the argument?