Author: nelson

Billy and Tommy were two little mischievous brothers who lived in a small town who were blamed for virtually every misdeed in town. For much of it they were rightly accused.
Their concerned mom made an appointment for the pastor to talk with them. She took them to the church office for the visit. The pastor using a psychological ploy decided to talk with them one at a time.
Tommy was first. Tommy was seated in front of the pastor’s desk and the pastor behind it. The pastor asked Tommy an easy question with a given answer to start the conversation.
“Tommy, where is God?” No answer.
Tactfully the pastor made a few comments and posed the question again. “Tommy, tell me where is God?” Still no answer.
After a few other moments of unresponsiveness the pastor pounded his desk and in a loud voice said, “Tommy, I know you know, tell me where is God?”
Tommy bolted from his chair, ran out of the office with Billy in hot pursuit. Tommy ran in the house upstairs to his room and into the closet holding the door tight.
Billy stood outside pounding on the door saying, “Tommy, Tommy what is the matter?”
Tommy answered, “Billy, run hide, God is missing and they are trying to blame it on us.”
Take even a casual look at our society and obviously God is missing. A legitimate question is who is to blame?
With my regard for and my shared guilt with the individual and institutions I believe the faith community is to blame. A broad spectrum of diverse leaders of the spiritual community of America banded together some years ago to influence elections and laws in our land. I was a part of that effort and believe it did a lot of good. However we focused our efforts on externals to try to change our culture. To a significant degree it worked for a time. One might well ask then why blame the faith community.
Though those efforts were admirable and to a degree effective they were relied on to the neglect of the one thing that can change our society. It is an inside job.
It may be a great act of faith to think it has to be changed one person at a time it is a greater act of lunacy to think it can  be changed any other way. The hearts of the people must be changed. Belief patterns must be shaped. Persons must become convinced there are absolute morals and stand for them.
For the last decade many of the spiritual voices have resorted to a message of health, wealth, and prosperity doctrine. A feel good faith has replaced a belief system given to moral absolutes regarding sex, abortion, greed, bigotry, integrity, and a sense of personal responsibility.
Dr. Karl Menninger, founder of the renown Menninger Clinic wrote a book on psychological problems with a title that poses a significant question: “Whatever Became of Sin?” Immoral acts still abound but they are called every thing but sin.
The faith community need not worry about being popular just right. Some things are right and some wrong. Our moral compass has been lost and voices too often muted that should be declaring the values that made us a more moral and righteous people.
God is missing. Perhaps a place to reintroduce Him and advocate His virtues for His people would be in our houses of worship. Some do a good job of it and are attracting people.

Did Jesus and His disciples consume intoxicating wine in observing the Passover?
Does the Bible admonition to “take a little wine for the stomach’s sake” legitimize consumption of intoxicants?
Was it possible to preserve wine in a non-fermented state in the time of Christ?
These and related questions deserve an answer based on historical facts.
Consider the last of these questions first.
Ancients had several ways of preserving unfermented wine. One way was to reduce the grape juice to the constituency of a thick syrup or even jelly known in Hebrew as debhash and in Arabic dbs. This preserved form could be used over a long period of time. By adding water the concentrate turned the water to unfermented wine.
Sometimes a cake was made of dried grapes which later had  water added to produce unfermented wine.
In 1869 physician and dentist Thomas Bramwell Welch and his son Charles were responsible for preparing the table at their church for the Lord’s Supper. They became concerned about using fermented wine. Utilizing only techniques from the time of the Bible they produced unfermented grape juice for use at the Lord Supper. Their product today is known as Welch’s Grape Juice.
Welch’s concern grew out of the fact bread with leavening was forbidden to be used at the Passover. Leavening involved using yeast. As the yeast cells die the decay produces gases. This fermentation results in the rising of bread. Purity was desired so unleavened bread was required.
Welch reasoned why would fermentation not be allowed in bread while being allowed in wine?
The Bible instructs people “Do not look on the wine when it is red, when it sparkles in the cup, when it swirls around smoothly; at last it bites like a serpent, and stings like a viper.” (Proverbs 23: 31,32). Movement in wine is caused by bubbles resulting from fermentation.
The Greeks seeing movement in the wine thought it indicated there was life in the wine. When wine was consumed it influenced speech, hearing, and one’s walk. Because of this outside control of the body they thought it to be a god and gave the god the name Baccah.
When the Bible appeals for persons not to be filled with wine, but be “filled with the Spirit” (Ephesians 5:18) it is teaching persons to chose the true God, the Holy Spirit, not Baccah. It means let the Holy Spirit control your body.
Wine was in common use in the Bible time. It is helpful to understand how it was used in deciding how to apply Bible verses related to it.

Wine was normally stored in large pointed jugs called amphorae. When it was to be used the desired portion was poured from the amphorae into a large bowl known as a kraters. From the kraters the cups, known as kylix, were filled.
In the large bowl, the kraters, water was added before the mixture was used to fill the cups, kylix.
The ratio of water to wine varied. Different ancient writers note different formulas ranging from one part wine to twenty parts of water. Others indicate a ration of 1-5, 1-4, 2-5.
At the wedding of Cana Jesus had the water pots filled with water and when the guests drank they referred to it as “wine,” the normal word for the mixture of water and wine.
Writers normally referred to wine mixed with water as “wine.” To indicate wine not mixed with water it was called “unmixed (akratesteron)wine.”
Drinking wine without it being mixed with water was looked upon as “Scythian” or barbarian. Mnesitheus wrote: “Mix it half and half, and you get madness; unmixed, bodily collapse.”
Plutarch wrote, “We call a mixture ‘wine,’ although the larger of the component parts is water.”
The Jewish Encyclopedia states that during the rabbinic period “‘yayin’(wine) was to be distinguished from ‘shekar’ (strong drink): the former is diluted with water (mazug’); the latter is undiluted (‘yayin hai’).”
The Jewish Talmud, which contains the oral traditions from 200 B.C. to 200 A.D. has several tractates in which the mixture of water and wine is discussed. The normal mixture is said to be 1 part wine to 3 parts water.
In the portion of that work known as Pesahim 108b it is stated that the four cups every Jew was to drink from during the Passover ritual the mix was a ratio of three parts water to one part wine.
From this can be concluded that what Jesus and the disciples used at the Last Supper was not an intoxicant.
From around 60 B.C. the Book of Maccabees 15:39 states, “It is harmful to drink wine alone, or again, to drink water alone, while wine mixed with water is sweet and delicious…”
Justin Martyr around 150 A.D. described the Lord’s supper in this way: “Bread was brought, and wine and water, and the president sends up prayers and thanksgiving” (Apology I, 67, 5).
Clement of Alexandria stated: “It is best for the wine to be mixed with as much water as possible… For both are works of God, and the mixing of the two, both the water and wine produces health….”
The mixture of water and wine was also used for medicinal purposes. Because of amoeba in water wine was added as a purifying agent. Hence, the Scripture says, “Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for the stomach’s sake and thine often infirmities.” (I Timothy 5:23). Wine was a disinfectant.
A constructive warning is expressed in Proverbs 20:1, “Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise.”

John Edwards, former candidate for President, has acknowledged having an illicit sexual relation. His marriage has been betrayed. The public has verbally pummeled him. His mendacious actions are reprehensible. When his concupiscence was exposed his deception was finally admitted. His actions were repudiated by most American as unacceptable. They didn’t meet our broadly accepted moral standards.
However, even a casual observer of TV sitcoms knows what was once considered promiscuous sex is now the cool thing. It is represented as the norm, the thing to do, talk about and laugh over. It is the basis of most intended humor in our entertainment. Our heroes and heroines in the media are more promiscuous than Hugh Hefner or a neighborhood cat. They have an insouciant attitude about sex.
Illicit sex is so open and blatant that it must leave parents of small children with a lot to explain. In the mean time children are growing up seeing it as almost normal. Gone are the days when in our media two persons of the opposite sex could have a good personal relationship without sex entering the picture.  That is the norm that is downplayed in our entertainment.
Check the news racks that line the check-out lines in stores and try to find one feature related to a well balanced marriage or a celibate star or starlet. Stories about super-models who want to have babies but don’t want to marry sell-not celibacy. Baby bumps by unwed prospective moms are big news. Five million opposite-sex couples in the U.S. live together without the benefit of marriage. Thirty-eight percent of all children in America are born out of wedlock costing taxpayers $112 billion a year.
A “Sex in the City” or “Desperate Housewives” culture never hints of virtue, chastity, moral integrity, or fidelity.
Why then beat up on John Edwards?
Because there is still a significant core in America that believes in fidelity and values the sanctity of marriage.
To paraphrase statesman William Penn “Immorality is still wrong, though all be for it and virtue is still right though all be against it.”
C. S. Lewis in his work “The Abolition of Man” refers to moral maxims as “Tao.” These maximums constitute our human moral inheritance. They are starting points for moral reasoning, deliberation, and conduct. The moral and spiritual earthquake in our culture is shaking these foundations. Any society that has tried to stand on morally neutral or empty ground has found it impossible to have any moral reasoning. Tao is as essential to civil life as axioms are to mathematics.
Aberrant appetites and desires cause people to want to ignore what moral reasoning requires. Without proper moral education our cherished freedom to make moral decisions will give license to be inhuman in any personally desirable manner.
History teaches us that when the freedom members of a society seek most is the freedom to do what ever they want freedom is lost.
Many in the media in America are seeking to reeducate our society on a new morality using entertainment as the means.
Are you involved in any organization that teaches the long held moral standards we inherited?