Traditions of Man - Prohibition of Alcohol

  • Thread starter Thread starter Eden
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Eden:
Of course people drink in moderation.

How can anything be clearer in the bible but that God made wine for our enjoyment and it is not sinful to drink in moderation?

Obviously there are some people who have an addiction to alcohol but your answers seem to be saying that God does not know human nature and that Jesus was mistaken to turn water into wine.
I will not do it because it causes harm to my testimony. I know from personal experience as I am sure many other Christians do as well. Non christians will spot what they see as hypocrisy.
things have changed too much. I just cannot agree with a Christian doing it anymore. I would not PROHIBIT but I sure explain to my kids why it hurts their testimony.
 
40.png
Eden:
The prohibition on dancing would mean all kinds of dancing including ballet. This is again a good example of traditions or teachings created by men in faiths that are “Bible only” but are not biblically based.

Ballroom dancing would hurt your testimony? Folk dancing too? How about a waltz?
Im not even sure what that is. I dont dance!!! 😃
 
40.png
Eden:
Of course people drink in moderation.

How can anything be clearer in the bible but that God made wine for our enjoyment and it is not sinful to drink in moderation?

Obviously there are some people who have an addiction to alcohol but your answers seem to be saying that God does not know human nature and that Jesus was mistaken to turn water into wine.
Heavens no.
Things were differnt back then. He did not turn it into a Colt 45.

Your view sounds sheltered to me, just an opinion.

I will not take any chances
 
If I may interject (and I’m sure anyone who has seen me post is probably screaming “NO YOU MAY NOT…”) with nothing more than my two cents.

To all of the non-Catholics who are saying they don’t think alcohol consumption is prudent…good for you (no sarcasm infused). You have made a personal choice based on Christian theology and noone is saying that there is anything wrong with refraining from alcohol consumption. We in the Catholic Church call that a “discipline” (such as fasting and abstinence from meat on Fridays during Lent, Holy Days of Obligation, celibacy of the Priesthood, etc), and we are forever hearing about how our disciplines within the Catholic Church are “unBiblical” according to whatever obscure, out of context verse some anti-Catholic fundamentalist will choose to quote. I think the entire point of the OP is that we ALL hold to certain “traditions of men”, even those who unknowingly claim their doctrine comes from the Bible alone. I am willing to read on through this post, but unless someone out there can cite Scriptural evidence that alcohol consumption is a sin (and there most certainly ARE various Protestant faith traditions that espouse this), then I for one will have to concur that declaring alcohol as sinful is a “tradition of men” in the purest sense, just as was the Pharisee’s declarations about hand washing. Please remember that we are asking for a defense of the official teaching of any denomination that declares any consumption of alcohol to be sinful, NOT a defense for anyone who makes a personal decision not to drink.
 
40.png
BrianH:
Heavens no.
Things were differnt back then. He did not turn it into a Colt 45.

Your view sounds sheltered to me, just an opinion.

I will not take any chances
But what is the historical basis for the claim that people did not have addictions to alcohol or drink to excess in biblical times? There were certainly pagans around - a crowd definitely not known for their moderation. And again, God knows all and He knows human nature. It seems you are questioning His omniscience.

You say that my view sounds very “sheltered” but I have two family members (very closely related), one through marriage and one blood related who are alcoholics. But the problem is their addiction, not alcohol itself. If someone can’t drink in moderation of course they should not drink. But what is un-Christian about someone who is not an alcoholic enjoying a glass of Merlot with a good steak?
 
40.png
joshua_b:
I think the entire point of the OP is that we ALL hold to certain “traditions of men”, even those who unknowingly claim their doctrine comes from the Bible alone. I am willing to read on through this post, but unless someone out there can cite Scriptural evidence that alcohol consumption is a sin (and there most certainly ARE various Protestant faith traditions that espouse this), then I for one will have to concur that declaring alcohol as sinful is a “tradition of men” in the purest sense, just as was the Pharisee’s declarations about hand washing. Please remember that we are asking for a defense of the official teaching of any denomination that declares any consumption of alcohol to be sinful, NOT a defense for anyone who makes a personal decision not to drink.
Thanks for putting the thread back on track joshua_b. That is exactly what I am saying.
 
40.png
Eden:
Thanks for putting the thread back on track joshua_b. That is exactly what I am saying.
…or would you rather I apologize for killing it ? :hmmm:
 
40.png
BrianH:
I do not know of any denominations that “prohibit” alcohol. I know of several that discourage its use because it causes Non Christians to stumble when they see us drinking as well.
Are you familiar with a denomination that officially “prohibits” it?
I think your lack of respones may be due to your use of the word prohibit.
My church discourages it.
Please PM me when you get a chance Dr. Fredricks.
I feel your pain 🙂 🙂

BH
I am a member of an Independant Fundamental Baptist Church. In our covenant we have:

“to abstain from the sale and use of intoxicating drinks as a beverage”
 
I think I may have used this link before, but I am interested in reading/hearing rebuttals. I myself belong to a church that agrees to obstain from drinking and the sale of alcoholic beverages. I myself NOW do not believe it is correct scripturally, but do morally. I know personally, my sexual sins…all of them …happened under the influence. I believe SATAN loves the use of alcohol because people become less inhibited. Anyway here is the artice and I look forward to the rebuttals.

Here is the link and the article:

wayoflife.org/fbns/didjesus.htm

DID JESUS MAKE ALCOHOLIC WINE?
Distributed by Way of Life Literature’s Fundamental Baptist Information Service. Copyright 2001.

These articles cannot be stored on BBS or Internet sites or sold or placed by themselves or with other material in any electronic format for sale, but may be distributed for free by e-mail or by print. They must be left intact and nothing removed or changed, including these informational headers. This is a listing for Fundamental Baptists and other fundamentalist, Bible-believing Christians. Our goal in this particular aspect of our ministry is not devotional but is TO PROVIDE INFORMATION TO ASSIST PREACHERS IN THE PROTECTION OF THE CHURCHES IN THIS APOSTATE HOUR.
How to Subscribe
Please note that this is not a free service. We take up a quarterly offering to fund this ministry, and each subscriber is expected to participate.

To Subscribe or Unsubscribe:
Click on the following link to go to
wayoflife.org/fbis/subscribe.html

Some of these articles are from O Timothy magazine. David W. Cloud, Editor. O Timothy is a monthly magazine in its 18th year of publication. Subscription is $20/yr. Way of Life publishes many helpful books. The catalog is located at the web site: wayoflife.org/.
Way of Life Literature,
P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061–0368.
1-866-295-4143 (toll free: USA & Canada),
519-652-2619 (voice), fbns@wayoflife.org (email)

Internet Discount on Fundamental Baptist CD-ROM Library

Sale! Way of Life Advanced Bible Studies Series

January 22, 1998 (Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061-0368, fbns@wayoflife.org) - The following article is by the late Bruce Lackey:

Jesus did not drink or make alcoholic wine. Here are ten proofs from Scripture.
 
THE FIRST REASON IS BECAUSE OF HIS HOLY NATURE. In Heb. 7:26, we read that the Lord Jesus is “holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners.” No doubt, the Saviour, being God in the flesh, had an air of holiness about Himself that could be seen by even the most casual observer. For instance, the profane soldiers, who were sent to arrest Him, gave as their reason for returning without Him, that “never a man spake like this man.” (John 7:46) The words of Jesus were different; He, no doubt, had a very holy appearance, character, and speech.

Why is this so important? Consider this illustration. The word “cider” may mean an alcoholic beverage, or plain apple juice. Suppose we lived during the 1920s, prohibition days, and were approached by two people offering us a drink of cider. One of the persons, we knew to be one of the holiest men in town, faithful to the house of God, separated from the world, diligent in prayers, always witnessing to others; the other was a known liquor dealer. If each one offered us a drink of “his very own cider,” we would assume that the holy person’s was no more than apple juice, but there would be no doubt about our opinion regarding the liquor dealer’s cider! Obviously, the character of a person influences what that one does.

Since the Lord Jesus Christ was “holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners,” we may safely assume that He would not make that which is called in Scripture a mocker and deceiver of man, causing untold misery.

A SECOND REASON: HE WOULD NOT CONTRADICT SCRIPTURE. In Mt. 5:17-18, Christ made this clear, saying, “Think not that I am come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” Therefore, Christ could not have contradicted Hab. 2:15, “Woe unto him that giveth his neighbor drink, that puttest thy bottle to him, and makest him drunken also, that thou mayest look on their nakedness!”

Certainly, Jesus knew that this verse was in the Bible; He was well-acquainted with Scripture, since it is His Word and was written about Him. He did not come to violate Scripture, but to fulfill it. He could not have done so, if He had made alcoholic wine and had given it to his neighbor.

Some people object to the use of this verse by saying that it would apply only to one who would give his neighbor drink for the purpose of looking on his nakedness. But we must remember: when one gives his neighbor something which will make him drunk, he is putting himself in the very class of those who do so in order to look on their nakedness. And since the Scripture commands us to “abstain from all appearance of evil” (1 Th. 5:22), we can be sure that the Lord Jesus would not have done something that would have been associated with such an evil practice as that described in Hab. 2:15. For the same reason, no Christian should be engaged in the selling of alcoholic beverage.

THE THIRD REASON IS THAT LEV. 10:9-11 COMMANDS THE PRIEST OF GOD, “DO NOT DRINK WINE NOR STRONG DRINK … That Ye May Put Difference Between Holy And Unholy, And Between Unclean And Clean; and that ye may teach the children of Israel all the statues which the Lord hath spoken…” Now, since Heb. 2:17 calls Christ “a merciful and faithful high priest,” we would expect Him to obey all Scriptures pertaining to that office. If He had made or drunk alcoholic wine, He would have disobeyed these verses and would have been disqualified from teaching the children of Israel the statues of the Lord.

THE FOURTH REASON IS FOUND IN A PASSAGE WHICH WE HAVE ALREADY CONSIDERED: PR. 31:4-5 PROHIBITS KINGS AND PRINCES FROM DRINKING ALCOHOLIC WINE OR ANY OTHER STRONG DRINK. IF THEY HAD DONE SO, THEIR JUDGMENT WOULD HAVE BEEN PERVERTED. It was necessary for Christ to obey these verses also, since He was Prince of Peace (Is. 9:6) and King of Kings (Rev. 19:16). In Mt. 27:11, He admitted to being the King of the Jews. He rode into Jerusalem on a donkey’s colt, to fulfill Zec. 9:9, which prophesied that Israel’s king would enter the city in just that way. Undoubtedly, He was king, and as such, would have had to obey Pr. 31:4-5.
 
REASON FIVE: CHRIST DID NOT COME TO MOCK OR DECEIVE PEOPLE, yet Pr. 20:1 says that wine does both. Rather than coming to mock or deceive he came to save!

REASON SIX: HE DID NOT COME TO SEND PEOPLE TO HELL. We have already seen that Is. 5:11-14 teaches that Hell had to be enlarged because of the drinking of alcoholic beverage. Christ did not come to send people to Hell; listen to Jn. 3:17: “For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.”

REASON SEVEN: CHRIST DID NOT COME TO CAST A STUMBLINGBLOCK BEFORE ANYONE; yet, Rom. 14:21 teaches that a person who gives another alcoholic wine does just that. “It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.” Everyone who has studied the problem of alcoholism has learned that some people cannot handle any amount of alcohol, while others may drink one or two “social” drinks and stop. Experts do not know why this is true; various theories have been propounded, but nothing has been proved to be true regarding every person. Some say it is chemical; others insist that it must be psychological. The fact is, we do not know for certain. In any given group of people, there would be several potential alcoholics. What a shame it would be for a person, who is a potential slave to it, to get his first taste at the Lord’s table in church, then proceed down the road of misery to an alcoholic’s grave!

I certainly would not want my children to get their first taste of alcohol at the family meal; nor would I want them to get it at church. One or more of them could well be potential alcoholics. As evidence that this is possible, we should consider that some denominations which serve alcoholic wine in their religious services also operate homes for alcoholic priests!

But we can be absolutely sure that Christ did not come to cause others to stumble!

THE EIGHTH REASON: JOHN 2, THE MIRACLE OF TURNING WATER INTO WINE, DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT IT BE ALCOHOLIC. Many insist that it was, on the basis of verse 10, which says, “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.” They would say that, in those days, it was common to serve the best alcoholic wine at first, saving the worst until later, when men’s tastes have been dulled by much drinking. But the point is just the opposite here! These people could definitely recognize that the wine which Jesus made was much better than what they had been served at first. This could not have been possible if they were already well on their way to becoming intoxicated! The fact is, neither the wine which they had at first, nor that which Christ made, was alcoholic.

REASON NINE IS FOUND IN THE SAME PASSAGE: THE LORD JESUS CHRIST WOULD NOT HAVE GOTTEN GLORY FROM MAKING DRUNK PEOPLE DRUNKER. Verse 11 is most important when it states that, by this miracle, Jesus “manifested forth his glory.” Verse 10 indicates that the people had drunk quite a bit of whatever kind of wine they were drinking. If it had been alcoholic, they would have been intoxicated, or nearly so. Had Christ made alcoholic wine, He would have made drunk people drunker, or almost-drunk people completely drunk! Such a deed would certainly not have manifested any glory to Him!

This chapter also gives us the tenth reason: making drunk people drunker would not have caused his disciples to believe more strongly on him, yet verse 11 says that, as a result of what He did in turning the water into wine, “his disciples believed on him.” Jn. 1:41 shows that they had already believed on Him as Messiah; this was a deepening of their faith and a proof that they had not been wrong. Would making drunk people drunker inspire such faith? The opposite would be likely! They were not looking for a Messiah who would pass out free booze! Thus, because of the description of this miracle and its result, we can not conclude otherwise than that this wine was non-alcoholic.
 
I still am amazed at the line about “ruining your testimony”. I came from this type of background, the fundamentalist/evangelical, and that was thrown around all the time to make you feel shame if you participated in anything they deemed would “ruin your testimony”. The problem is this: why would these things ruin your testimony if there is nothing intrinsically evil in them? It’s only if you subscribe to the theory that they are in and of themselves wrong, and submit yourself to a community that prohibits these things, that you could ruin your testimony in the eyes of this community.

The world doesn’t understand these artificial prohibitions, and could care less, you certainly wouldn’t be ruining your testimony to them. So it is within this closed community itself that your testimony would be in fact ruined (or compromised let’s say).

The logical thing would be not to construct artificial prohibitions in the first place, eliminating the potential ruin of many a testimony among it’s members. I think this is why Paul kept coming back to this time and time again. Christians were setting up artificial legalities and expecting others to live up to their standards and it was creating a false spirituality, a life lived in legalism. This was not condoned and time and time again discouraged by Paul

Thus we have denominations who police activities that have nothing whatsoever to do with a person’s relationship with the Lord and creates erroneous perspectives on what it means to be a good Christian.
 
40.png
malachi_a_serva:
THE FIRST REASON IS BECAUSE OF HIS HOLY NATURE. In Heb. 7:26, we read that the Lord Jesus is “holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners.” No doubt, the Saviour, being God in the flesh, had an air of holiness about Himself that could be seen by even the most casual observer. For instance, the profane soldiers, who were sent to arrest Him, gave as their reason for returning without Him, that “never a man spake like this man.” (John 7:46) The words of Jesus were different; He, no doubt, had a very holy appearance, character, and speech.
Luke 7:33-34 Jesus drinks wine and is accused of being drunk. You can’t get drunk from apple juice or grape juice.
Why is this so important? Consider this illustration. The word “cider” may mean an alcoholic beverage, or plain apple juice.
The Bible is definitely referring to an alcoholic beverage not a juice. The Greek word for wine, oinos, used in the “don’t get drunk on it” verses, is the same word used in the “it’s okay to drink it in moderation” verses.
Since the Lord Jesus Christ was “holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners,” we may safely assume that He would not make that which is called in Scripture a mocker and deceiver of man, causing untold misery.
I believe this is refer to these passages “Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging, and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise” (Prov. 20:1); “And do not get drunk on wine, in which lies debauchery” (Eph. 5:18). Other verses used are Proverbs 23:21, Habbakuk 2:15, and Isaiah 5:11.

If you read closely, you see in Ephesians 5:18 Paul doesn’t say, “Do not drink wine.” That would be a complete prohibition. Instead, he says not to drink wine to excess–quite a different thing.
A SECOND REASON: HE WOULD NOT CONTRADICT SCRIPTURE. In Mt. 5:17-18, Christ made this clear, saying, “Think not that I am come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” Therefore, Christ could not have contradicted Hab. 2:15, “Woe unto him that giveth his neighbor drink, that puttest thy bottle to him, and makest him drunken also, that thou mayest look on their nakedness!”
The Bible refers of the goodness of wine when used correctly: “You may then exchange the money for whatever you desire, oxen or sheep, wine or strong drink, or anything else you would enjoy, and there before the Lord your God, you shall partake of it and make merry with your family” (Deut. 14:26). Other pro-wine-drinking verses are Genesis 14:18; Eccle-siasticus 10:19; Sirach 31:12-31; Psalm 104:15; and 1 Timothy 5:23.
Certainly, Jesus knew that this verse was in the Bible; He was well-acquainted with Scripture, since it is His Word and was written about Him. He did not come to violate Scripture, but to fulfill it. He could not have done so, if He had made alcoholic wine and had given it to his neighbor.
Wine is alcohol. There is no such thing as non-alcoholic wine.

1 Corinthians 11:20-21: “When you meet in one place, then, it is not for eating the Lord’s Supper, for in eating, each one goes ahead with his own supper, and one goes hungry while another gets drunk.” Since grape juice has no intoxicating effects, what does Paul refer to? How can one get drunk on grape juice?

After reading the account of the wedding at Cana one might legitimately wonder why, if Jesus turned water into grape juice, John goes out of his way to quote the headwaiter’s remarks: “Everyone serves good wine first, and then when people have drunk freely, an inferior one”? No matter how freely one drinks grape juice, it won’t impair one’s ability to discern between good and inferior grades.

catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9203chap.asp
If He had made or drunk alcoholic wine, He would have disobeyed these verses and would have been disqualified from teaching the children of Israel the statues of the Lord.
Again look at Luke 7:33-34.

Passages from the Old Testament with which Jesus would have been familiar:

Gen. 14:18

Gen. 27:25

Neh. 8:10

Psalm 104:15

Ecclesiastes 9:7

Wisdom 2:7

Sir. 31:25-28

Sir. 40:20

Isaiah 25:6

Amos 9:14

Zech. 10:7
 
Jeanette L:
I still am amazed at the line about “ruining your testimony”. I came from this type of background, the fundamentalist/evangelical, and that was thrown around all the time to make you feel shame if you participated in anything they deemed would “ruin your testimony”. The problem is this: why would these things ruin your testimony if there is nothing intrinsically evil in them? It’s only if you subscribe to the theory that they are in and of themselves wrong, and submit yourself to a community that prohibits these things, that you could ruin your testimony in the eyes of this community.

The world doesn’t understand these artificial prohibitions, and could care less, you certainly wouldn’t be ruining your testimony to them. So it is within this closed community itself that your testimony would be in fact ruined (or compromised let’s say).

The logical thing would be not to construct artificial prohibitions in the first place, eliminating the potential ruin of many a testimony among it’s members. I think this is why Paul kept coming back to this time and time again. Christians were setting up artificial legalities and expecting others to live up to their standards and it was creating a false spirituality, a life lived in legalism. This was not condoned and time and time again discouraged by Paul

Thus we have denominations who police activities that have nothing whatsoever to do with a person’s relationship with the Lord and creates erroneous perspectives on what it means to be a good Christian.
Well said. I myself have had some trouble differentiating the difference. Woman should not wear pants because the Bible says woman and men should look dofferent and wear different clothes. Men do not have long hair because the Bible tells us it is foolish. Dancing, style, music, worldliness…yes I understand yet it is cloudy and a gray area for me. For instance you said the world would not care about these things…and it wouldn’t ruin our testimony…

That is just it, The Bible says we must seperate from the world. The world is of the flesh, has lust of the eyes, lust of the flesh and the pride of life…Not trying to argue or disagree, just positioning where this comes from.

🙂

Have a look here:

wayoflife.org/fbns/fbns-index/indexfbns.htm

These are teachings I am accustomed to. Not sure one way or the other…and dependant on the day. However I do see where legalism becomes a barrier. But some see proper obedieance as just that, …obediance.

(again sorry about all the typos)

I don’t want to hi-jack this thread (just recently llearnt that word as well…hi-jack thread)…so we can keep it on topic with alcohol.
 
40.png
malachi_a_serva:
I think I may have used this link before, but I am interested in reading/hearing rebuttals. I myself belong to a church that agrees to obstain from drinking and the sale of alcoholic beverages. I myself NOW do not believe it is correct scripturally, but do morally. I know personally, my sexual sins…all of them …happened under the influence.
If someone individually finds that they cannot drink moderately, then they most certainly should not drink. But drinking alcohol is not intrinsically evil.
I believe SATAN loves the use of alcohol because people become less inhibited.
Fr. John Corapi has a great series on Addictions and he says the exact same thing. The evil is addiction though, not alcohol itself.

www.fathercorapi.com/index.aspx
 
40.png
Eden:
“And do not get drunk on wine, in which lies debauchery” (Eph. 5:18).

Hello Eden. It was my own reading and coming across Ephesians 5:18 where I felt peace that prohibition was not demanded from scripture. From my own KJV:

“And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;”

Here it is clear that Apostle Paul distinguishes “excess” and does not demand abstinance. This verse brought me peace on the subject. However it is expalined away and using my own mortal analogy, and same reasoning, I would then have to accept Mary as not an ever virgin (Matt 1:25) “And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son;”…not trying to change the subject just demonstrate that if I accept my reasoning on one, I would have to accept it on the other…using the same rationale (no need to go there…just explaining my thought/rationale process).
 
40.png
malachi_a_serva:
For instance you said the world would not care about these things…and it wouldn’t ruin our testimony…

That is just it, The Bible says we must seperate from the world. The world is of the flesh, has lust of the eyes, lust of the flesh and the pride of life…
And I agree completely, we must separate from the world. But that separation is spiritual and moral. And we are talking about the morality of drinking alcohol…as prescribed in the Scriptures.

So when the Scriptures are clear about morality, we obey, no questions. When the Scriptures tell us that certain things are left to the consciences of individuals, should we then obey that directive as well? Or should we take matters into our own hands, as many have done down through the ages, and make up our own rules and say these new standards are what is now the only acceptable Christian behavior?

I understand society has a lot of problems. But over reaction, or extreme reaction is not the answer, because that is not what the Scriptures tell us. Moderation is a virtue, and we have to get back to teaching people what virtues are and how to live out a life of virtue, not just throw a lot of artificial rules their way and call it a day. That does nothing to build the character that ultimately the Lord is trying to build in us as his children.
 
40.png
malachi_a_serva:
However it is expalined away and using my own mortal analogy, and same reasoning, I would then have to accept Mary as not an ever virgin (Matt 1:25) “And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son;”…not trying to change the subject just demonstrate that if I accept my reasoning on one, I would have to accept it on the other…using the same rationale (no need to go there…just explaining my thought/rationale process).
You are misreading Matt. 1:25.

Matt. 1:25 - this verse says Joseph knew her “not until (“heos”, in Greek)” she bore a son. Some Protestants argue that this proves Joseph had relations with Mary after she bore a son. This is an erroneous reading of the text because “not until” does not mean “did not…until after.” “Heos” references the past, never the future. Instead, “not until” she bore a son means “not up to the point that” she bore a son. This confirms that Mary was a virgin when she bore Jesus. Here are other texts that prove “not until” means “not up to the point that”:

Matt. 28:29 - I am with you “until the end of the world.” This does not mean Jesus is not with us after the end of the world.

Luke 1:80 - John was in the desert “up to the point of his manifestation to Israel.” Not John “was in the desert until after” his manifestation.

Luke 2:37 - Anna was a widow “up to the point that” she was eighty-four years old. She was not a widow after eighty-four years old.

Luke 20:43 - Jesus says, “take your seat at my hand until I have made your enemies your footstool.” Jesus is not going to require the apostles to sit at His left hand after their enemies are their footstool.

1 Tim. 4:13 - “up to the point that I come,” attend to teaching and preaching. It does not mean do nothing “until after” I come.

Gen. 8:7 - the raven flew back and forth “up to the point that” [until] the waters dried from the earth. The raven did not start flying after the waters dried.

Gen. 28:15 - the Lord won’t leave Jacob “up to the point that” he does His promise. This does not mean the Lord will leave Jacob afterward.

Deut. 34:6 - but “up to the point of today” no one knows Moses’ burial place. This does not mean that “they did not know place until today.”

2 Sam. 6:23 - Saul’s daughter Micah was childless “up to the point” [until] her death. She was not with child after her death.

www.scripturecatholic.com
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top