Can A Christian Get Drunk According To Scripture?
Debate Rounds (3)
Without use of the Greek you simply have, "Be not drunk" It never says 'get not drunk'. This is where the Greek comes in and explains it very nicely. Before anyone accepts this challenge please do a little research into the Greek and note the words used; Methuo and Methusko. Methuo is the state of intoxication and Muthusco is the prolonged state of Methuo.
Saying a person who gets drunk on occasion, (say a wedding feast) is a drunkard is categorically false.
If one does this research and still would like to debate this issue, based on Scripture only, please do!
1. The difference between Greek and original translations
2. Scripture for and against liquor
4. anything else that comes to mind that has clear evidence.
Yes, I believe in an Almighty Creator and am His.
I figured this would be a debate with the Scripture for, the supposed against and then the people vote a winner. I am new at this but willing.
As far as the original and the Greek translations: I am not sure what you mean as we get our translation from the Greek but I am interested in hearing what you have.
All this being well and good, it all still boils down to what I have given already. The Original Greek is what I gave, clearly the differences in the languages can be seen. We have a word for drunk, a word for drunkard and so on, I don't know why the translations could not have been more in our favor but we have what we have. If Jesus gave wine to those who were according to the Scripture, "Well drunk" then who are we to say it is wrong, bordering on blasphemy however I know this is not your intent. If Jesus does something and we call it wrong because of our teachings is this not blasphemy?
You stated you would post the for and against verses but I believe I have cleared up any argument the against crowd has but again, I am eager to hear from you.
May the Mercy of Jesus be glorified,
"Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God."
or in greek
"`6;_2;P57;_7;_9;_3; _6;P51;_2;^5;_3; _4;Q82;_6;_9;_3; _4;^5;P54; `4;P48; P05;_6;_9;_3;^5; `4;_9;P59;`4;_9;_3;`2; O39; `0;`1;_9;_5;P51;^7;`9; P17;_6;Q50;_7; _4;^5;_2;P60;`2; `0;`1;_9;^9;Q50;`0;_9;_7; P05;`4;_3; _9;O85; `4;P48; `4;_9;_3;^5;Q66;`4;^5; `0;`1;P49;`3;`3;_9;_7;`4;^9;`2; ^6;^5;`3;_3;_5;^9;P55;^5;_7; _2;^9;_9;Q66; _9;P16; _4;_5;_1;`1;_9;_7;_9;_6;P53;`3;_9;`5;`3;_3;_7;"
As you can see Methe or methou is used in this line, which tells about getting intoxicated instead of getting repeatedly intoxicated (Drunkard)
and sorry for my miswriting or mis-phrasing last round. I apologize. And about your message about Jesus giving wine to his followers. That is completely true and is a major hole in any prohibitionist argument. While I am not a prohibitionist in any sense of the word and I have no qualm against alcohol. So maybe Jesus did not mind giving his men wine but never gave them enough to lose their heads. In general I would like to say that almost any human desire that we allow to happen is a sin (Fornication, gambling, jealousy, lust, lying) getting drunk is included. But we the followers of the lord and his son are cleansed from these sins and are forgiven. So in the end while it is a earthly desire that in gods eyes is a sin can easily be forgiven and we his followers can be cleansed of our inherent evil.
Yes, it was Eph 5:18 and I must apologize but my study of this topic was many years ago and since I have lost my Greek translation however, I know for a fact this was cross-referenced with many verses and I know for a fact that there was at least one cross-reference that used Methusko with regards to inheriting eternal life...possibly 1Cor 6:10. As far as the one verse (more than likely the one you referenced) that may state Methou when thinking about eternal life, I can not refute however there is a different one with the opposite. So, is there a fault in the translation? Possibly, but I do not believe it is an error. That being said, there is one verse (memory serves me) that would seem to contradict. There are many supposed contradictions in Scripture for one; James says we know then our father Abraham was justified by works and in Hebrews It states our father Abraham was not justified by works. If we get stuck on these 'contradictions' we loose. God's Word does not contradict however a finite being trying to understand the Infinite will indeed contradict. I am willing however to entertain the fact of translational error. When dealing with so called errors we need to be very careful as we are finite dealing with an Infinite Book and search the Scripture. Scripture will always (in my humble opinion) clarify Itself. If you take just one verse you are in danger of becoming a snake handler in the south (wonderful people I am sure and even believers).
Read the wedding feast and the supporting verses, the master of the feast was upset because Jesus' wine was so good and he wondered why they withheld the best wine until the persons at the feast were already 'well drunk' (Methou). You would serve the best wine first and then when the guests were drunk the inferior would be served. It is just common sense you would want the guests to have the best wine while they could still understand taste, the inferior would suffice the drunk crowd.
While you correctly assert that there are many sins; fornication, drunkenness...ect, we must realize that "Whatever is not of faith is (also) sin" and when we live by this Truth we are simply destined for hell without the Blood of His Son Jesus! We, as Christians, state we can be better tomorrow than we were today. This is extremely dangerous, if this were true we only would need an endless amount of time not a Savior. If we do not come to the realization that we are filthy, wretched and in need of His mercy, we loose. Alcohol included. We (I) can do no good in human flesh, I can however do right. Right will never make me holy but is a simple reflection of Jesus in me. If one believes he can do good, look at Rom 7 and Paul's fight. Paul couldn't do it but we think we can...?
Some may use this debate to indulge their desire to drink (BTW I do not drink often and have been drunk just a few times) however if we as Christians are constantly looking for a way to indulge the flesh we may want to consider a look at our hearts. We see that, "All things are indeed lawful for me but not all are profitable". This means we, according to grace, can do anything but we are not to be brought under the power of anything. This is another argument for my position that it is not sin to get drunk, only to become a drunkard. This is not achieved easily! It takes work to become a drunk. If one looks at almost all sin, it starts as temptation and when we give in blossoms into sin. Another debate, Christians say if we continue in sin we can not be saved but I am here to tell you we continue in sin all day every day. This verse in 1 John 3:9 is a mistranslation. If it used the same Greek word as in Rom 6 "Continue in sin" this would be a different mater but this has since been translated wrongly because we do not understand the Infinite so we think messing with the translation can better do what the original couldn't?
Back to the subject at hand. We are His but live in sinful flesh and there is none righteous...not one. I am sinful, I sin. I am worthy of nothing but death and hell but because of the Blood I am whole. I am a Child of the King. I am forgiven!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Geogeer 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||0|
Reasons for voting decision: I would have thought one of you would have used Noah being drunk, or proverbs: ?Wine is a mocker and strong drink is a brawler; whoever goes astray by them is not wise? (Prov 21:1) It is my understanding that this word was used in Genesis 43:34 "So they feasted and drank freely with him." And if you were Catholic you'd see Maccabees 16:16 "And when Simon and his sons had drunk plentifully..." So I would personally argue that drunk freely doesn't necessarily mean really drunk, it could still mean that they have proper use of their faculties. However in terms of this debate it is very tricky. There was no knockout punch per se. However, Pro makes the argument that the wedding guests are so drunk that they can no longer tell the quality of the wine. This is a very good argument that is not refuted by Con. As such I award the arguments to Pro.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.