(August 3, 2020 at 11:54 am)Rev. Rye Wrote:2 things.1 your synopsis, not my argument. I was demonstrating the difference between new wine, old wine, and fruit of the vine. (as pr my op which you said was wrong.) I was demonstrating old wine having no potential of rupturing a wine skin. new wine does because it is pre fermentation and the co2 from the fermentation process would destroy the old skins.. so there are two forms of wine one with one without alcohol. which is different still from fruit of the vine which is a whole fruit.(August 3, 2020 at 11:12 am)Drich Wrote: we know wine is different as it has it's own word and if christ mean alcoholic wine he would have used this word:
οἶνος oînos, oy'-nos; a primary word (or perhaps of Hebrew origin ()); "wine" (literally or figuratively):—wine.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lex...3631&t=KJV
which is different than new wine as out lined in:mat 9 mark 14, and luke 22. new wine differs from old wine as this parable states it contains yeast and will expand, which is the reason for the warning of not putting new wine in old wine skins as old wine skins do not have the ability to flex with the build up of gass/co2. meaning if you put new wine in an old wine skin it will likely burst during the transformation from fruit of the vine to wine.
You're arguing that if Christ meant alcoholic wine, he would have used the word "Oinos." To pick an example, you chose the parable of the wineskins. So I checked the text of all three variations on that parable, in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. The word used for wine each of the ten times it's used? Oinos. Just click on the little "Tools" tab or on the chapter/verse citation on each of those verses and you'll find the interlinear translation that shows every single Greek word in the original text of that verse.
Seriously, your response as a whole is either just doubling down on your stupid or just repeating the same information I presented, but treating it like it's somehow the opposite. You argue that if Christ meant alcoholic wine, he'd have used "oinos," I point out that the vast majority of references to wine in the New Testament use that exact word. Surprisingly, even most uses of "new wine" in the NT use that word. The one other time outside of this parable the phrase "new wine" is used in the NT (with a different word), it's in a context that makes no sense if you're talking about a non-alcoholic drink.
That was point one. point two is your 'correction' failed now for a 2nd time. you did not souce the word correctly nor does it match with the context of the biblical use. you stumbled into this subject like a drunk sliding through an intersection somehow only missing everyone present and now you want to pretend it was driving skill. no i said from the beginning fruit of the vine is grape juice. wine in alcoholic. and new wine was pre fermentation, then you came in to correct... remember that? if there is correction to be made it is yours to fit what i have established. in my opening statement and my biblical use of the words provided. your 80% effort may feed into your dunning kruger problem, but it does not properly provide an exegesis to the op question.
