Perhaps this is a “thank offering” for the gift of grapes to make the wine.
Perhaps the rest of the wine is at home.
Not sure when it began, but at meals, thanking God for the Vine and the
wheat at meals is a Jewish tradition. The “Vine” in the form of wine,
the “grain” in the form of some type of “bread”.
This is what Jesus was doing on that Thursday Night. Except He changed
it slightly, to Remember Him by until His return. So each evening meal when
bread and “wine” was served, to bless the bread as a token of His body broken,
to bless the wine as a token of His spilt blood.
We Christians took this daily evening meal FROM THE HOME, placed it in the
Church, and now we celebrate ONLY once a week or ONCE only 4 times a
year. Jesus wanted it to be a Daily, Evening FAMILY celebration/remembrance.
And, include friends and relatives when they visited.
And what is found in Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 is not clearly spelled out according to you?
In the Bible, sexual relationships are generally only allowed in the framework of marriage. So same-sex marriage would imply that same-sex sexual relationships were licit which is not the case.
You are mistaken here.
First, regulating doesn’t mean encouraging (for example, divorce was regulated (see Deut. 24:1,3 for instance) but Jesus was clear that God is against divorce). God is not encouraging slavery. For example, several times He reminded that Israelite that they were slaves in Egypt and that they didn’t like it. So they were asked to be kind toward other people even the strangers.
Second, slavery is the usual example used to justify the change of view concerning homosexuality without considering if we are dealing with the same type of situation. We have to be careful not to fall for what may be a logical fallacy.
Harrpa, you rock!!!
Do you think having sex with your wife while she’s on her period is a sin?
Do you think mules are sinful? Beefalos? How about Camas? Zebroids?
Is it OK to pick the cherries off a tree you plant in the first three years?
Is it OK to shave your face? Even your sideburns?
Is it OK to shun immigrants? Or, do you love them as your own?
In other words, not a ritual, proctored by self-ordained men in a choreographed and forced dance. No wonder the foot washing got dropped-it was a bit cumbersome daily! And to do so to a smelly-footed stranger, at church.
How many other things has the institutional church squeezed all the joy (wine?) from, and instead “ce vin est aigre”?
What if rather than attempting to define exclusively God and his Truths and squeezing that into our cubicled pews, we simply revelled in our good fortune, good (and not so good) kin and neighbors, friends, strangers?
Instead we prance around like upturned prune nosed snobbish someliers and profer vegebeast, grape juice, and a side of ellen, never really feeding anyone a drop or a crumb (except our own morbidly obese egos)
We use jargon and vintage to exclaim the excellence of the wine, but never share it with joy unbridled. I agree with Jesus mother; “son, please make us some GOOD wine-this vinegar has set our teeth on edge…”
----and speaking of the ceremonial law Nymois, according to JewishEncyclopedia,com the great Rabbinic scholar, Maimonides, who was referred to as the second Moses by many, believed that the sacrifices in Mosaic law was a “concession to the pagan propensities of the people.” Perhaps some Adventists could assert that by allowing strong drink, God was also giving a sop to the Israelites due to their “pagan” propensities although it wasn’t the drink of choice.
From the entry: MAIMONIDES, MAIMUNI](http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/10302-maimonides-maimuni – See Moses ben Maimon.
“The discrimination between “laws based upon reason” and “laws demanding obedience to God’s will” was adopted by Saadia (“Emunot we-De’ot,” iii. 12; compare Ibn Ezra to Ex. xxi. and “Yesod Moreh,” v.), and, with direct reference to the rabbinical passages quoted, by Maimonides (“Moreh Nebukim,” iii. 2b; “Shemonah Peraḳim,” vi.). Joseph Albo (“Iḳḳarim,” iii. 25), if not Simon ben Ẓemaḥ Duran (see Zunz, “G. S.” ii. 194), is the first who divides the Biblical laws into ceremonial, juridical, and moral laws. He admits, however, that he adopted this classification from a Christian controversialist; and, as a matter of fact, he forced himself in consequence to declare, with Maimonides ( l.c. iii. 46), the sacrifices of the Mosaic law to be a concession to the pagan propensities of the people, and (in accordance with Sifre to Deut. xi. 13) prayer to be the true “service of the Lord”—a standpoint hardly to be reconciled with the belief in supernatural revelation and the permanence of the Mosaic law.”
Indeed, there is a lot of confusion concerning wine.
First of all, offerings to the Lord were regulated. You could not just do whatever you wanted and this, from the beginning (see the story of Abel and Cain in Genesis).
Second, offerings had more to do with God’s will than man’s will. By this, I mean that it was God who decided what the best a “person had to offer” was, not man. So, for example,when Cain offered his “best”, it was discarded.
Third, nowhere in the Bible is it indicated that God considered strong wine as the best for man (though human beings have a strong desire toward it ). In the contrary, time and time again, we see text after text warning us against wine (and strong drinks), even comparing it to a serpent. But while saying that, God said to use wine and strong wine for drink offerings. This shows that the usage of wine by God doesn’t mean that it is the best desired kind of wine for man. It is not the first time we see in the Bible that God asked the Israelite to give Him what they were forbidden to use. For example, in Exodus 30:34-38, God asked the children of Israel to make a special perfume but they were forbidden to make it for themselves.
I cannot follow your logic. Just because same-sex marriage is never mentioned in the Bible, does not mean the Bible prohibits it. It simply means that no one in Biblical times dealt with the topic.
I don’t have time for a complete word study and analysis of these verses, but both of them have a very interesting turn of phrase: “If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable.” The Hebrew words used to describe the players in this scenario are such that the emphasis is on a man, by having sex with another man, is treating the other man as if he were a woman. The emphasis seems not to be on the fact that is it is a sexual act, but rather than it is a perverse act toward another man, making him as if he is a women. Being a woman, in that culture, was considered the lowest position short of slavery. To treat another Israelite man in this fashion, would therefore be an “abomination.” It would have been a violation of a cultural norm.
Given the social baggage, this also implies that such an act would not be considered consensual. The one penetrated would have been raped, essentially. Even today such an act is considered illegal and immoral. Lest you think my interpretation of what Leviticus is describing is far-fetched, consider also that no mention whatsoever is made of women having sexual relations with other women. There is no need to mention lesbian sexual relations, since a woman having sex with another woman does not socially demote her by such an act. She is already a woman and cannot be further demoted.
This is why the two verses in Leviticus do not describe the kind of sexual relationship seen in a same-sex marriage, where sexual relations are consensual. This is also why it is important that as the culture changes, many of the Levitical laws must be reevaluated
Even if these two verses are as clear-cut as you say they are, they still need to be reevaluated in light of what we now know about gays and lesbians biologically. Same-sex attraction is a perfectly normal attraction for them. God expects us to learn from His second book as well as His first book.
“If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent.” Mat. 12:7
You are cherry-picking. I am a teetotaller myself, so do not recommend drinking any wine or alcoholic beverage, but it is twisting the Bible to claim that it prohibits all drinking. Modern research, although there is some disagreement on this, by and large has found that it is best for one’s health to consume no alcoholic beverages. On the other hand, it is not terribly unhealthy to drink occasionally. Sure, it is better not to drink at all, but the margin, healthwise between light (and possibly moderate) drinking and no drinking is slim. You have to really twist the Bible around in knots to show that it discourages all drinking.
As for sacrifices, all the “harvest” sacrifices, which would include wine, were, in principle, to be the best of the crop. This implies that fermented wine was considered desirable, and was so recognized by God. To say otherwise, again, means twisting the word considerably.
does the swedish union affirm the biblical teaching that sexual relations between two men, and by extension, two women, is an abomination…if so, why don’t they say so…if not, why bother affirming anything else the bible teaches…
we have a general conference coming up in about a year’s time…is the swedish union trying to frame a narrative they anticipate will be up for discussion and/or a vote…
i don’t think the GC should make the same mistake with LGBT that it made with WO…there are some things the official church shouldn’t comment or take a position on, and WO and LGBT are clear examples…it isn’t a dereliction of leadership to let certain questions sort themselves out over time…
There are certain Organized Religion Belief Systems that have crept into the
Christian Church that are Extra-Biblical. Ordination of successors of Peter
is one. Of having their Ordination pedigree to be able to be traced back to
the Apostle Peter.
Another one is that although Paul recognized Women as leaders in the
Christian church, that our Catholic Church Fathers ruled that that would
no longer occur, and that MEN Only could be leaders.
Another change was to TAKE the observance of the Eucharist out of the
evening meal at HOME and take it to church. Instead of the head of the
home engaging the family in the Eucharist, THE Catholic Church Fathers
said ONLY Ordained Priests could perform the Eucharist and it HAD to be
in the Church, and ONLY the bread could be partook by the laity, and ONLY
after Confession activity to the priest.
Later ONLY marriages conducted in the Church would be recognized, even
though prior to that, on the way to the church, it was performed at City Hall,
Many TRADITIONS in the Christian and SDA church are carry overs from the
Early Catholic Church Fathers.
YES! God created Male and Female in His Image, and between the two gave
them power to recreate themselves and populate the world.
According to the person who wrote Genesis 1 he DID NOT say what the person
who wrote Genesis 2 said.
Genesis 2 has a completely different TAKE on Creation. This person said the
reason for Eve was because the one Man should not be ALONE. Eve was to be
much more than just someone for Adam to talk to. She was to be Adam’s
encourager. Is there any ideas in those 20 verses that might just be the PERSONAL
thoughts of the writer [who was different from the Genesis 1 writer]? Perhaps
Humans [Bible uses the word “Man” to denote ALL humans] are NOT to be alone.
Is how it should read.
So is God concerned on WHO will be Best Friends Forever? IS God concerned if
some Men or some Females decide NOT to replicate themselves, and would
prefer to have a Best Friend Forever who is like them in physical appearance?
These are some of the Issues that the SDA church Theology PH.D’s REFUSE to
No body is willing to address our Catholic Fathers heritages we find in the way we
do Church or the WAYS our worship spaces are designed by our Catholic Fathers.
And ways in which Humans may relate to each other as Best Friends Forever.
Jeremy – perhaps the Swedish Union IS attempting to address some of these issues.
It often seems difficult for straight people to understand how normal, natural and unchangeable same-sex attraction is in gays. One way to help make sense of it would be to consider what you, as a straight person, would do if you woke up this morning and discovered that same-sex attraction is now considered the norm and opposite sex attraction is considered unnatural and that only same-sex relations are legal.
As a straight person you now have three choices. 1) You could persist in your unnatural and blasphemous practice of heterosexuality, in spite of the law and suffer the social and legal consequences, 2) you could change your sexual orientation so that you are now attracted to same-sex individuals, as disgusting as such an attraction seems to you, or 3) you can choose to remain single and celibate so you can “fit” in to the community and hopefully “pass” as normal.
This is the very like the set of choices so many straight communities are putting before our LGBTQ+ brothers and sisters. Easy, huh?
If the SDA church addressed some of the issues I put out above,
Perhaps ALL SDA Gays could go to Ft. Lauderdale, FLA to the beach with a
“clear conscience”, and not have to hide the fact that they go there. Or who they
associate with while there.
but why are they attempting to address this LGBTi question in the first place…are they thinking that the church at large is so clueless, that they’ve been specially called to spell out an appropriate response…
my point is that there doesn’t need to be a neat solution for every perceived problem that exists…this only leads to calls for uniformity, which in turn leads to the kind of enforcement mechanisms that the compliance committees now represent…
We have to recall the CALL of Christ – Come, ALL who are heavy laden [burdened]
with whatever is on your mind, heart.
So I can give you “rest”.
The Church has LOST the fact that the Church is to be Echoing THIS Call of
“rest”, and that the call is to ALL [no matter Who ALL are.]
Perhaps the Swedish Union IS attempting to CHANGE. To be more Christlike
in its approach to Humanity. To Call ALL to find “rest” in God -God the Father,
God the Son, God the Holy Spirit.
No matter Who ALL are.
And since LGBT’s have been told so many decades that THEY have no place in
Christ’s kingdom, no place in Christ’s circle of followers the Swede’s are trying to
in some way apologize to Christ and His “Father” and His representative here on
earth, the Holy Spirit for Denying the LGBT’s a place at God’s Table.
It is about time that LGBT’s are allowed to have a seat at God’s Table in the SDA
Steve, I suggest that you use LGBT’s instead of LGT’s. The LGTarians may end up having the impression that you are welcoming them, and that the Church should do the same. When this is not actually the case, the LGTarians are not welcome with their heresy on perfectionism.
The LGTarians need to be kept at their own table with their own heretic meals. We don’t eat that “stuff.” …
Will do. Don’t want to cause “confusion” of languages. LOL!
Since we just had Pentecost, we want people to hear the right message
in their own language.
I am glad you are not going keep the “babelonian” language… LOL -
Most Adventists won’t connect with this liturgical allusion…
But what a special day! The church I attended had red balloons throughout the sanctuary as well as mylar animals like big fish from the deep which God created for sport. Trays of petite four individual cakes with a red frosting flower emphasizing the birthday of when the church was born. Nearly everyone wore red. As an Adventist I have never experienced this celebration. My favorite part is the four in-depth scripture readings. So rich in the scriptures. The music focused on the Holy Spirit.
Thanks for mentioning Pentecost, @niteguy2
steve, do your really think LGBTi individuals are such victims, and so helpless, that they actually believe they’ve been denied a place at god’s table merely because the SDA hasn’t been, and isn’t, open to their lifestyle…i think you underestimate LGBTi individuals…understand that many gay people break with family and other close associations in order to be what they know they are inside…gay people are usually much stronger, and much more self-reliant, than average individuals…they don’t need you or the swedish union to lay out a welcome mat for them…