raphieMontella:

Oh..crap..is it that you dont understand what i wrote sire?
Please visit here...
The original manuscripts of the new testament
the word used there is ''oinos''..
And whenever ''oinos'' is used with ''drunk''(being drunk/drunkeness), it means the wine in question is alcoholic...
As shown in ephesians 5:18..
And john 2:10 is a parallel to ephesians 5:18(oinos and drunkeness together)..

Or do you need more verses like eph 5:18 in corroboration with the truth i posted?

raphieMontella:

sir...oinos is used with drunkeness..
If oinos used with drunkeness does not imply that the wine in the passage is alcoholic..
What then does it imply?

Im talking about the untranslated manuscripts and what the original author had in mind...not our present day translations..

4everGod:



Eyehategod and raphiemontella is it that English is not your strong point?

John 2 vs 10 spoke in Past participle just like when you have DRINK DRANK DRUNK ...Drunk there is not referring to intoxication but its referring to a past act of drinking and not drunkenness.

Gosh you guys need help in english comprehension

4everGod:



Besides John 2 vs 10 was speaking in past participle hence why the word DRUNK was used there and did not mean drunkeness. ...DRINK DRANK DRUNK...English grammer is good and I see why you atheists need a crash course in it.

RoadsAndGreen:
the authors said. he was drinking and eating. then people criticized. here a glutton and a drunkard.

why do you pick what the critics thought and ignore what the authors though
it

FSMs:

Joh 2:10 And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: [but] thou hast kept the good wine until now.

Well drunk is the past participle of What in that context

hopefullandlurd:


lol our dear 4evergod says his Jewish carpenter couldn't have turned it to alcohol because the grapes needed fermentation for months

never knew his imaginary friend has his limits

4everGod:



When men have well drunk is the past participle for drink....in essence what the scripture said was WHEN MEN HAVE FINISHED DRINKING THE BAD WINE YOU HAVE NOW BROUGHT US THE GOOD WINE...

Its Past participle and was not talking about drunkeness. ..Na wa o English is not Maths na so why is it so difficult for some to understand? Here you are facepalming me when you should be facepalming yourself.

FSMs:

What does Well Drunk in that context Mr English professor

4everGod:



Eyehategod and raphiemontella is it that English is not your strong point?

John 2 vs 10 spoke in Past participle just like when you have DRINK DRANK DRUNK ...Drunk there is not referring to intoxication but its referring to a past act of drinking and not drunkenness.

Gosh you guys need help in english comprehension

Deicide:
Pastafarian book of FSM https://www.amazon.co.uk/Gospel-Flying-Spaghetti-Monster/dp/0007231601

4everGod:



Chai are you sure you went to school at all?

When men have well drunk means WHEN MEN HAVE FINISHED DRINKING.... its an old English expression in Grammer.

The word HAVE depicts an action and MEN depicts who carried out the action so WHEN MEN HAVE WELL DRUNK means WHEN MEN HAVE FINISHED DRINKING OR HAVE GONE FAR OR EXHAUSTED THE WINE AVAILABLE which is referred to as the Bad wine in this scripture then they praised the groom for bringing out the Good wine which is the one Jesus turned from water.

I know English is rocket science for some but something this elementary shouldnt be rocket science for someone who can register and type on Nairaland should it?

raphieMontella:

lol..its clear to see..
I can even post the original words warefa..

---

scholar8200...
1 corinthians 11:20-22..
Was paul not advocating alcohol there?

raphieMontella:


No. No..in those days drunk was drunk(alcohol) while in pertaining to water and your wayo past participle and co ''drinketh''[pino] was used..
The word used in john 2:10 for drunk is ----''methu''
from which ''methusko'' is derived...
And ''methusko'' means ''being drunk,,intoxicated''...
words derived from ''methu'' like methosos, etc all mean being drunk,,drunkeness,, etc

2..in ephesians 5:18..drunk is used as an adjective...not a verb
which shows that drunk with wine...is drunkeness

Scholar8200:




How would Paul advocate something clearly condemned in Galatians 5?

FSMs:

He didn't condem it he only condemned it in Excess

Eph 5:18 And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;

FSMs:

So there is Good Fruit Juice and there is Bad Fruit juice?

and also what is drunk used in this context?

Luk 5:37 And no man putteth new wine into old bottles; else the new wine will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish.
Luk 5:39 No man also having drunk old [wine] straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better.
Luk 13:26 Then shall ye begin to say, We have eaten and drunk in thy presence, and thou hast taught in our streets.

Scholar8200:
But since a newcomer would be intoxicated by a glass (least moderation) what would you say?

4everGod:



All verses in Luke 5 and the one in Luke 13 are sti words in past participle talking about a comparative situation of an action done before and one compared with now..

I suggest you also click and read the link I posted for Raphiemontella so you would cease from being ignorant.

Scholar8200:


No, he wasnt.

Those in corinth were used to the orgies and drinking in idolatrous worship and , like human nature is wont, some were already abusing a solemn Christian practice as though it was a substitute for what they were before. Paul then was saying something like, '' if you choose such a sinful course of life spare the Church the shame and return to your own houses!''

Jude alludes to such people,''These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear Jude 12a

How would Paul advocate something clearly condemned in Galatians 5?

FSMs:

Please can you Explain to me How UnAlcholic Wine would burst A Bottle?

Luk 5:37 And no man putteth new wine into old bottles; else the new wine will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish.

FSMs:

Please can you Explain to me How UnAlcholic Wine would burst A Bottle?

Luk 5:37 And no man putteth new wine into old bottles; else the new wine will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish.

raphieMontella:

You know indulgence is different from just taking right?
In Gal.5 it seems to be indulgence he is referring to.....
And by saying ''do it at home'''..its like saying..although s*x between married couples is not a sin in christian theology..but it is inappropriate to do such in church...
Catch the drift?

Or are you saying paul was saying its okay to sin at home but not in the church?

FSMs:

So that verse is for new comers?

4everGod:



Listen carefully if you would. When it talks about bursting the bottle it talks about fermentation and results of that and was not talking about wine. It was refering to an action or reaction but not about wine. Wine was used for this example...

New wine is the HOLY SPIRIT and the old Bottle is SINFUL MAN...The holy spirit and sinful man do not mix. ..that is what that scripture is talking about...THE OLD SINFUL MAN CANNOT CONTTAIN THE HOLY SPIRIT as that would mean that the sinful man is bringing condemnation to himself...

Scripture isnt a novel...its either you get the message or you dont.

Scholar8200:
No! Since these Epistles were written to believers, it would be a case of introducing sin to them if you told them to drink moderately knowing fully well that a moderate drink will intoxicate a new comer!

Scholar8200:

Here is the purpose that Jesus referred to, not fermentation:

38 But new wine must be put into new bottles; [size=18pt]and both are preserved[/size]

That is for storage purposes. They didnt have bottles then.

FSMs:

Explain how drinking Moderately would intoxicate a new comer and then make the drunk

FSMs:

Good Good Good now it's a metaphor Clap for yourself my Hands are on my head right now

hopefullandlurd:
like this?