Wine In The New Testament

[mfbukowski]

If I may offer some advice to you for a change, perhaps you should consider how my "mocking" is so disturbing to you.  If I constantly remarked how the saints were all 40 feet tall or had green skin, would you take such offense?  Of course not.  So why does it frost your cookies if I ask a question about the ACTUAL application of Church policy?  And by the way, what the heck is wrong with frosted cookies?  And isn't an unfrosted cookie just a cracker?  But I digress ...

 

In this example, you are so upset because I asked what happens if you go on an iced tea binge.  If it seems absurd to you that this would be a problem, then perhaps I'm not the one frosting your cookies.  If I had asked what happens if I go on a weekend alcohol binge in Las Vegas, would that question have been so offensive to you?  I doubt it.  But I am a secret agent for the Anti-Mormon League of America if I ask about the implications of violating other parts of the WoW, right?

 

And you'll forgive me if I don't know how this whole "Judge in Israel" thing works.  For all of my adult life until now, I've been my own judge (for better and MOSTLY worse).  And since I was absent from church the day they passed out the "What to Expect When You're Expecting to Sin" manual, I don't exactly know what offenses warrant a trip to the Bishop and which ones can be prayed away on our own.

 

So you can choose to be offended by my questions all you like, but I'm going to keep serving up my questions with lots of frosting because life is too darn short to eat just dry crackers!

When all you see is crackers, I suppose you are blind to the cookies all around you.

[Calm]

If I may offer some advice to you for a change, perhaps you should consider how my "mocking" is so disturbing to you….

I would suspect there are two tones that are coming across in many of your posts that bother mfb because they bother me…one is that you sound like you are trivializing things I personally hold sacred at times and the other is what appears to be a tendency to present something in a negative way.  It comes across as an intentional pushing of buttons, mindgames…which personally I despise.  I grew up with someone who like to see if he could make others squirm as entertainment with the excuse that all he wanted to was to help people think out of their boxes and anything that resembles that annoys me in major ways.

 

This may not be your intent, it may be our own cultural background that is causing us to get that 'tone' from your writings.  I am offering this as an observation and information, not as a criticism.  You know best your own intent in how you write things.  However, since I know it pushes my buttons, I am tending not to read your comments in detail but quickly skim over them.

Edited June 5, 2014 by calmoriah

[mfbukowski]

I would suspect there are two tones that are coming across in many of your posts that bother mfb because they bother me…one is that you sound like you are trivializing things I personally hold sacred at times and the other is what appears to be a tendency to present something in a negative way.  It comes across as an intentional pushing of buttons, mindgames…which personally I despise.  I grew up with someone who like to see if he could make others squirm as entertainment with the excuse that all he wanted to was to help people think out of their boxes and anything that resembles that annoys me in major ways.

 

This may not be your intent, it may be our own cultural background that is causing us to get that 'tone' from your writings.  I am offering this as an observation and information, not as a criticism.  You know best your own intent in how you write things.  However, since I know it pushes my buttons, I am tending not to read your comments in detail but quickly skim over them.

Agreed, and ultimately it goes to credibility.

No one wants to answer a question if the answer just brings ridicule from the one who asked. He has no respect for anything. Let him figure it out -or not, himself. I really don't care anymore.

[mormonnewb]

I would suspect there are two tones that are coming across in many of your posts that bother mfb because they bother me…one is that you sound like you are trivializing things I personally hold sacred at times and the other is what appears to be a tendency to present something in a negative way.  It comes across as an intentional pushing of buttons, mindgames…which personally I despise.  I grew up with someone who like to see if he could make others squirm as entertainment with the excuse that all he wanted to was to help people think out of their boxes and anything that resembles that annoys me in major ways.

 

This may not be your intent, it may be our own cultural background that is causing us to get that 'tone' from your writings.  I am offering this as an observation and information, not as a criticism.  You know best your own intent in how you write things.  However, since I know it pushes my buttons, I am tending not to read your comments in detail but quickly skim over them.

 

I certainly can respect that you just ignore me.  My wife does so all of the time.  It's really the key to our 22 years of wedded bliss.

 

As for trying to push buttons, that is not my intent.  And believe it or not, this is NOT how I communicate with my brothers and sisters in my ward.  I've been on the receiving end of enough flattery that I know how the game is played -- find something positive to say, say it and move on.  And I'm not knocking this general propensity to seek the good and conciliation.  It's one of the things that drew me to the saints in the first place.

 

However, it is not my natural disposition.  And it certainly isn't how I make sense of my world.  I tend to deconstruct things and then reassemble them in a way that makes sense to me.  And in joining this Church, there is A LOT to try to make sense out of it.  So I came to this board to get some materials and building techniques from Mormons who I suspected had gone through this process in one area or another -- Mormons who knew about POSSIBLE issues with the the Book of Abraham, the CLAIMS of anachronisms in the BoM, etc.  Mormons who at one time struggled (and some who still do struggle) with various aspects of their testimony.

 

In posing my questions, I have not INTENDED to insult or demean but rather communicate as clearly as I am capable of doing.  It might sound jarring for someone to describe, say, our sacred garments as "underwear" but, at the time, as I looked at the pieces all around me that was all I saw.  And so I communicated in that very plain and abrupt manner because I wanted to be clear as to just how "broken" my understanding was at the moment.  I simply didn't see a sacred or holy garment laid out on my bed each morning.  I saw UNDERWEAR with a "Made in the USA" tag complete with washing instructions.  My hope in being so candid is that I would hear from someone who could say, "I used to think of it just like you.  In fact, I even stopped wearing them for a time but then I heard a SP or a GA say ....  Now, I see them totally different."  And that has happened quite a few times over the last several months.

 

And in exchange for my further light and knowledge, I was hoping that you faithful members were getting a clearer insight into how our doctrines/practices CAN be perceived by converts, particularly us middle-aged and older folk.  Just because most people have the social graces not to say the things I express on this board, it doesn't mean that they aren't thinking them.  For instance, three years ago, when our home teachers first told us about the patriarchal blessing, I was so incredulous that I blurted out, "You want me to get my fortune told?  You do know I went to college, right?" (I hadn't read the 13th Article of Faith at the time)

 

My wife shot me one of "those" looks and apologized for me.  She listened very intently about the entire process, even expressing a desire to receive her blessing in the near future.  As we were discussing the matter afterwards, she assured me that she had gone to college as well but didn't see any need to be rude about the whole thing.  And now, three years later, I'm closer to getting my PB than she is because she is too "respectful" to ask the questions that might allow her to override four DECADES of experience with con artists and gypsies who cheated our grandmothers, cousins and aunts through palm reading, Tarot cards and the like.

 

In the "outside world," there are a lot of customs that mimic the "truths" of the Church.  So if someone has spent almost their entire life outside of Mormonism, how would you expect them not to be wary that patriarchal blessings, tithing, et al aren't just another scam?  And just because they have the class not to express the similarities, it doesn't mean that they have accepted the "truth" either.  They are just agreeing to be agreeable and avoid asking the hard questions.

 

And if THIS board isn't a place for such a frank conversation, where is that place?  Sunday school?  Relief society?  Elders quorum?  Or should I have these conversations on the ex-Mormon boards?  I'd certainly get a lot less flak for my questions but I'm not sure just how much light and knowledge I'd receive.

Edited June 5, 2014 by mormonnewb

[thesometimesaint]

Ask me any question you want. I'll give you my opinion which may or may not be accord with what the Church actually says. Though I do try to be as close to it as I can. To your question of drinking of tea. We have the WoW which the relevant part the Church has defined as drinks made from the tea plant. IE: Mormon Tea is not made from the tea plant so doesn't violate the WoW.

 

BTW Mormon Tea taste terrible to me. So I don't drink the stuff but that has nothing to do with the WoW.

 

Also consider that the Church isn't in the business to alienate its members let alone subject them to Church Discipline for trivial matters like a single all day bender of drinking iced tea. That really is for between you and the Lord. Now if you go around teaching that the drinking of tea is a Church doctrine. The Church does take a dim view of that. Which upon correction by Church officials is still maintained can result in Church Discipline.

[Abulafia]

Just to go back to the initial post.

The Nazarite vow from Numbers 6 is intriguing, as is Jesus' connection with Nazareth.

The Lord spoke to Moses, saying: 2 Speak to the Israelites and say to them: When either men or women make a special vow, the vow of a nazirite,[a]to separate themselves to the Lord, 3 they shall separate themselves from wine and strong drink; they shall drink no wine vinegar or other vinegar, and shall not drink any grape juice or eat grapes, fresh or dried. 4 All their days as nazirites they shall eat nothing that is produced by the grapevine, not even the seeds or the skins.5 All the days of their nazirite vow no razor shall come upon the head; until the time is completed for which they separate themselves to the Lord, they shall be holy; they shall let the locks of the head grow long.6 All the days that they separate themselves to theLord they shall not go near a corpse. 7 Even if their father or mother, brother or sister, should die, they may not defile themselves; because their consecration to God is upon the head. 8 All their days as nazirites[c] they are holy to the Lord.

It may be that following John the Baptist, Jesus had taken a Nazirite vow. I do appreciate that this doesn't fit with the gospel accounts, but they were written many years after the fact, and no one knows for sure if they were first hand witnesses (most likely not), and Paul just doesn't cover this aspect of Jesus' life.

So, if he had taken a Nazirite vow he could have been teetotal.

Philo mentions both Essenes and Therapeutae, the Therapeutae being an interesting group because they consumed simple food and water from a spring. So, again there was precedent for a teetotal life within contemporary Judaism.

The other point I wanted to make, was that I find it interesting that some contributers here refer to abstinence from alchohol as a sign of a covenant. This just sounds so Jewish. Circumcision held that same position for Jews in terms of identity. Jesus was a Jew, and he would have been circumcised as a sign of the covenant, and for many Jewish Christians this continued to be an important aspect of their faith. It seemed to be Paul and other gentile converts who were pushing against the need for circumcision.

Mormonism, in many ways appears to be a halfway house between Pauline Christianity and Judaism. Fascinating.

[thesometimesaint]

It seems unlikely to me that Jesus would take a Nazirite pledge then turn water into wine, make numerous references to wine, and still be accused of being being a winebibber.

[Abulafia]

Sometimes Saint, I appreciate that view point and have sympathy with it, but from a historical rather than faith view it is plausible. We really know so little about the historical Jesus.

Are the gospels historical or documents developed and created to portray a certain ideology and theological view? Was the story of Jesus turning water into wine meant to be taken literally or was it a method by which the writer expressed the idea that Jesus was a fulfilment of a certain Jewish notion of a Messiah. So much we don't know.

It is interesting that Hegessipus refers to James as a Nazirite (brother of Jesus and first bishop of Jerusalem) who had taken a vow. And there are connections with a Nazirite way of life and John the baptist and parts of Jesus ministry as they are portrayed in the gospels. Paul may have taken a temporary Nazirite vow (Acts).

[Thinking]

The Word of Wisdom being transformed into a commandment is one of those things that just doesn't fit. Many faithful LDS can't believe that Jesus drank alcoholic wine, hence the existence of the wine as unfermented grape juice pseudo doctrine. Jesus was very clear about rejecting rules that regulated consumption.

 

The scribes and Pharisees asked Jesus a  question: "Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread." (Matthew 15:2)

 

Jesus answered their question and more: "Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man...Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught. But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man." (Matthew 15:11,17-20)

[MiserereNobis]

I don't see drinking during a parish social in anyway promoting alcoholism or abuse.

 

I think I mentioned it before, but one priest in our diocese offers "Theology on Tap."  We meet at the brewpub and drink beer and talk about God.

 

Catholic monasteries are well known for their incredible beer, wine, and spirits.  Trappist Ales, for example, or Chartreuse.

 

Alcohol consumption has a long cultural history in Catholicism.  I think that makes Catholics look at it differently.

 

Isn't drinking a big part of (contemporary) Jewish culture as well?

[Abulafia]

Thinking, I love that passage, and love the idea of a Jesus who looks beyond regulations that have nothing to do with the 'weightier points of the law'.

I really hope those sayings are authentic and not a later writer taking pot shots at Jewish traditions.

[changed]

I come from a big Catholic family, my grandfather died of alcohol poisoning.  

[The Nehor]

The Word of Wisdom being transformed into a commandment is one of those things that just doesn't fit. Many faithful LDS can't believe that Jesus drank alcoholic wine, hence the existence of the wine as unfermented grape juice pseudo doctrine. Jesus was very clear about rejecting rules that regulated consumption.

 

It is because many LDS do not actually read the Word of Wisdom. They just know the "don'ts". The Word of Wisdom is very clear that it is dispensation specific and built specifically for our day. It is made clear that it is temporary. It may go away. In this dispensation we are told that anyone who can be called a saint can live it. 

 

It becoming a commandment I have no problem with. That is what prophets are for.

[Abulafia]

Nehor, I appreciate the point about continuing revelation, as well as the issue of development from 'word of wisdom' to 'commandment' within mormonism today.

I think though, for those who look on Jesus' word as ultimate authority as represented in the gospels, (from a faith standpoint) there is a big problem with the way the practise has developed within Mormonism. I think most would appreciate the problems of excess in alchohol or other aspects of the word of wisdom but to make it a commandment smacks of the strict legalism which many of the early Christian's (not all, and the evidence is mixed) were fighting so hard against.

When I was active I kept the word of wisdom. I didn't drink alchohol, and I think my life was the better for it. However, it didn't make me a good person. It identified me as different to others, it entrenched my identity as Mormon, and it got me a temple recommend and so obedient to authority, but what it didn't do was to make me a kinder, more loving person.

I think this was the problem that Paul had with legalism. Circumcision identified a 1st century Jew as obedient to the covenant but it didn't make them a good person.

So, Jesus, the majority of the time, in the gospels, is portrayed as attempting to change the emphasis. There are weightier matters.

[thesometimesaint]

Sometimes Saint, I appreciate that view point and have sympathy with it, but from a historical rather than faith view it is plausible. We really know so little about the historical Jesus.

Are the gospels historical or documents developed and created to portray a certain ideology and theological view? Was the story of Jesus turning water into wine meant to be taken literally or was it a method by which the writer expressed the idea that Jesus was a fulfilment of a certain Jewish notion of a Messiah. So much we don't know.

It is interesting that Hegessipus refers to James as a Nazirite (brother of Jesus and first bishop of Jerusalem) who had taken a vow. And there are connections with a Nazirite way of life and John the baptist and parts of Jesus ministry as they are portrayed in the gospels. Paul may have taken a temporary Nazirite vow (Acts).

 

I have no problem with Jesus drinking wine. It does no damage to my faith. However I don't see him as a drunkard. Such wasn't Kosher and still isn't today.

[The Nehor]

Nehor, I appreciate the point about continuing revelation, as well as the issue of development from 'word of wisdom' to 'commandment' within mormonism today.

I think though, for those who look on Jesus' word as ultimate authority as represented in the gospels, (from a faith standpoint) there is a big problem with the way the practise has developed within Mormonism. I think most would appreciate the problems of excess in alchohol or other aspects of the word of wisdom but to make it a commandment smacks of the strict legalism which many of the early Christian's (not all, and the evidence is mixed) were fighting so hard against.

When I was active I kept the word of wisdom. I didn't drink alchohol, and I think my life was the better for it. However, it didn't make me a good person. It identified me as different to others, it entrenched my identity as Mormon, and it got me a temple recommend and so obedient to authority, but what it didn't do was to make me a kinder, more loving person.

I think this was the problem that Paul had with legalism. Circumcision identified a 1st century Jew as obedient to the covenant but it didn't make them a good person.

So, Jesus, the majority of the time, in the gospels, is portrayed as attempting to change the emphasis. There are weightier matters.

 

There are weightier matters but just because there is something more important does not mean you ignore the lesser things. Jesus said the same. He told people obsessed with the little things to do the important things and NOT to leave the little things undone.

 

Not denying the Holy Ghost is more important then not committing murder does this mean I don't need to worry about not killing people?

 

The strict legalism Jesus decried was the kind that invented rules on top of actual commandments. In our day this would mean ignoring people who add rules to the Word of Wisdom or multiply Sabbath Day restrictions or whatever. Those things can be safely ignored in the sense that each person makes up their own mind about them. It is not license to ignore the actual commandments even though they may be minor.

[The Nehor]

I have no problem with Jesus drinking wine. It does no damage to my faith. However I don't see him as a drunkard. Such wasn't Kosher and still isn't today.

 

But the Law of Moses food restrictions are gone. If not being a drunkard is kosher and I am not supposed to be kosher does that mean I am under commandment to be an alcoholic.

[thesometimesaint]

But the Law of Moses food restrictions are gone. If not being a drunkard is kosher and I am not supposed to be kosher does that mean I am under commandment to be an alcoholic.

 

I agree they are gone for us. Not so much for the Jews in biblical times according to the Bible.

[The Nehor]

I agree they are gone for us. Not so much for the Jews in biblical times according to the Bible.

 

That was a tongue-in-cheek "I am being stupid comment" (the one you were responding to, not yours)

[thesometimesaint]

That was a tongue-in-cheek "I am being stupid comment" (the one you were responding to, not yours)

 

[Abulafia]

Differentiating between invented rules and commandments...ikes....what a can of worms that is!

[thesometimesaint]

Differentiating between invented rules and commandments...ikes....what a can of worms that is!

 

Whether it is man invented(rules) commandments or God invented commandments(rules ) it is all invented rules.

[The Nehor]

Differentiating between invented rules and commandments...ikes....what a can of worms that is!

 

Not really. What is in the scriptures: Commandment

 

What is traditional but not in the scriptures or what Brother Jones keeps harping on about without support: Invented Rules

 

It's really not that hard. Some people make it hard because then they can expend effort on figuring things out which is easier and usually more fun then just living the commandments.

[Abulafia]

Not really. What is in the scriptures: Commandment

 

What is traditional but not in the scriptures or what Brother Jones keeps harping on about without support: Invented Rules

 

It's really not that hard. Some people make it hard because then they can expend effort on figuring things out which is easier and usually more fun then just living the commandments.

If only it were that easy. I seem to be cross posting from another thread, but what is considered canon today has a history.

[The Nehor]

If only it were that easy. I seem to be cross posting from another thread, but what is considered canon today has a history.

 

And where, in a rubber meets the road right now sense, is there confusion about whether something is a commandment.