Hot Pick Of The Day

[skiracer]

I could not disagree more with Mr. Stein. To even suggest that the wine, of which Jesus said "This is my blood" (Matt. 26:2, was some watered-down admixture is utterly preposterous. That wine was symbolic of Jesus' own blood, which was used to mediate a new covenant, or "testament," with his followers. To suggest it was watered down is tantamount to implying that Jesus' blood was something less than pure. There was no leaven in the bread; there was no water—or any other impurity—in the wine. That is my thought on the subject.

I think that you could argue this point until you are blue in the face. Most born again Christians will go along with what the Bible states verbatim, and that is their choice and they should be able to believe in what they choose, and you are not going to convince them otherwise. My sister and brother-in-law are ministers and have a rather large church and congregation. They don't drink any wine or spirits of any nature and won't have it in their house. That makes the holidays and special events hard to take for me at their house. If I go there they won't offer or have any alcoholic beverages of any type. They won't come to my house because they don't want to be around the alcohol. An impasse. Who is right and wrong here. I just don't go by their house for any affairs anymore. We still talk and everything else is ok but I just don't go there because of it and they won't come to mine.

[Rob]

Mr. Stein explains: [. . .] From this we can conclude with a fair degree of certainty that the fruit of the vine used at the institution of the Lord's Supper was a mixture of three parts water to one part wine.

I could not disagree more with Mr. Stein. To even suggest that the wine, of which Jesus said "This is my blood" (Matt. 26:2, was some watered-down admixture is utterly preposterous. That wine was symbolic of Jesus' own blood, which was used to mediate a new covenant, or "testament," with his followers. To suggest it was watered down is tantamount to implying that Jesus' blood was something less than pure. There was no leaven in the bread; there was no water—or any other impurity—in the wine. That is my thought on the subject.

[New-born baby]

70 years old or 27 years old, if you drink and drive you'll get busted, as well you should.

I respect your reasons for abstaining from alcohol. I never implied that Jesus ever got drunk, but only that he did drink alcoholic wine. As far as the Scribes and Pharisees thing goes.... A man in your position ought to bear in mind that rules imposed by men are not necessarily required by God, thus the "camel" statement. If you don't do that, then it does not apply to you.... There are many religious leaders today (in the Christian faith and others) that it does apply to IMO.... On the other hand there are also many religious leaders today that gloss over clear cut rules and Bible principles to appease their wayward flocks in order to be PC.... or just to keep members coming to church on Sunday's, this is just as bad.

BTW, Your statement about avoiding stumbling your fellow man is respected by me and I can see that you try hard not to do that. Thanks for your viewpoint and research, I learned something by the interchange.

PS. You don't have to use those smileys all the time when talking with me. I can visualize you in conversation. I've read hundreds of your posts and I think I know your personality pretty well, as I hope you do mine. I know that you smile a lot, as do I.

Lye,
Thanks for your post. I appreciate the Lyehopper. I use the smileys in an effort to convey friendliness and civility. In a real conversation you'd be able to see my body language, hear my tone of voice, and pick up on all the other aspects of communication that are hidden by the written word. I just wanted you to know I wasn't angry. [deleted smiley]

I do agree with you that some in the pulpit "tiptoe through the tithers." What I do in my pulpit is preach exegetical sermons, starting in chapter one, verse one, and continue through the entire verse. I try to handle every word and every sentence in order not to do that.

[Lyehopper]

Dear Lye,
You are correct:
1. Maccabbees is not inspired Scripture. It is history that gives us insight into how the Jews 150 years before Christ viewed the consumption of wine.
2. You are correct when you say the consumption of alcohol is not forbidden in Scripture.
3. You are correct when you say that drunkeness is forbidden in Scripture.
4 You MIGHT be correct to say that Jesus made alcoholic wine, and that He drank it. But no doubt He did not become drunk, nor give it to anyone so that they would become drunk.

But I think you are incorrect to imply that NBB is in the same category as the Scribes and Pharisees of Jesus' Day (i.e. man-made rules; hypocrisy). I did give you Bible reasons why I don't drink any alcoholic beverages .

Last year the President of one of our church associations had trouble sleeping. The doctor prescribed a glass of wine before bedtime. He was later picked up for drunk driving and lost both his Presidency and his pastorate. He was 70 years old and had been in the ministry since he was 19 years old. He had done a lot of good, but this thing tripped him up. His unfortunate experience is an example of why I abstain. If you never take the first drink, you'll never become drunk. I am playing it safe.

Thank you so much for your responses, Lye. You are always welcome to talk about anything with me. And God bless all the Lyehoppers

70 years old or 27 years old, if you drink and drive you'll get busted, as well you should.

I respect your reasons for abstaining from alcohol. I never implied that Jesus ever got drunk, but only that he did drink alcoholic wine. As far as the Scribes and Pharisees thing goes.... A man in your position ought to bear in mind that rules imposed by men are not necessarily required by God, thus the "camel" statement. If you don't do that, then it does not apply to you.... There are many religious leaders today (in the Christian faith and others) that it does apply to IMO.... On the other hand there are also many religious leaders today that gloss over clear cut rules and Bible principles to appease their wayward flocks in order to be PC.... or just to keep members coming to church on Sunday's, this is just as bad.

BTW, Your statement about avoiding stumbling your fellow man is respected by me and I can see that you try hard not to do that. Thanks for your viewpoint and research, I learned something by the interchange.

PS. You don't have to use those smileys all the time when talking with me. I can visualize you in conversation. I've read hundreds of your posts and I think I know your personality pretty well, as I hope you do mine. I know that you smile a lot, as do I.

[New-born baby]

WHats your opinion on HTGC New born?

GWHIZ
My opinion is that you know how to pick stocks that have some real potential!
The weekly chart(which, in the opinion of the best technicians) trumps the daily. Looking at the weekly you see that HTGC has a cup formation with a breakout TODAY. It ought to run for you to $17.50+, which would be a huge 30% gain on an investment right here. NICE PICK!

[New-born baby]

The Maccabbees is not inspired Scripture. The wine in Bible times contained alcohol. PERIOD! It was not forbidden to drink it in the inspired scriptures. PERIOD! Jesus had a problem with all the little rules the self righteous Jewish religious leaders of his day were throwing on the people. Matthew 23:1-37.... So just because the Jews at that time were watering down their wine does not mean it was required by a Christian. While Jesus was of Jewish blood he was a Christian and he was the founder of the Christian faith was he not? He was not under Jewish law was he? He drank alcoholic beverage, did he not?. He produced alcoholic beverage, did he not? It's simple, watered down or not, drinking alcohol is not a sin..... Drunkeness is....PERIOD! So brother NBB, go drink a glass of fine red wine for your stomach's sake.... and be careful not the swallow a camel in the process.

Dear Lye,
You are correct:
1. Maccabbees is not inspired Scripture. It is history that gives us insight into how the Jews 150 years before Christ viewed the consumption of wine.
2. You are correct when you say the consumption of alcohol is not forbidden in Scripture.
3. You are correct when you say that drunkeness is forbidden in Scripture.
4 You MIGHT be correct to say that Jesus made alcoholic wine, and that He drank it. But no doubt He did not become drunk, nor give it to anyone so that they would become drunk.

But I think you are incorrect to imply that NBB is in the same category as the Scribes and Pharisees of Jesus' Day (i.e. man-made rules; hypocrisy). I did give you Bible reasons why I don't drink any alcoholic beverages .

Last year the President of one of our church associations had trouble sleeping. The doctor prescribed a glass of wine before bedtime. He was later picked up for drunk driving and lost both his Presidency and his pastorate. He was 70 years old and had been in the ministry since he was 19 years old. He had done a lot of good, but this thing tripped him up. His unfortunate experience is an example of why I abstain. If you never take the first drink, you'll never become drunk. I am playing it safe.

Thank you so much for your responses, Lye. You are always welcome to talk about anything with me. And God bless all the Lyehoppers

[New-born baby]

Well, I see things haven't changed much in the past few weeks. The market is making a new high and you guys are arguing over wine. LOL!

Lye, wine in Talmudic times was a concentrate (with the exception of Italian wines, which were of a much higher quality). That's why it was watered down; unadulterated, it was undrinkable. Less than a 2:1 mixture of water to wine concentrate wasn't drinkable so the normal dilution varied from 2:1 to 3:1. Italian wines did not need watered down to be drinkable but they were rarely found in the middle east except among the very wealthy, due to the high cost of transport.

BTW, there was no Christianity until after Jesus' death. Many theologians place the formal start around AD 30 - 35.

Welcome back, Dave Yes, someone got it all started with a comment about NBB being a teatotaller, so I told them why, and the next thing ya know . . . we missed the entire bull market! LOL I am always glad to give a reason for my beliefs. It doesn't bother me at all that someone should inquire about some issue. It's all good

The church formally began on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2, which was 50 days after Christ's resurrection. We think that was somewhere between 29 AD and 33 AD. The reason for not having an exact date is due to changes in the calendar.

[New-born baby]

Yer welcome dude.

Do I like the R/R on XOM? Well, I think I'd be able to "manufacture" a good r/r setup on the trade.... I like 68.00 for the attempt, and I'd be waiting for price action to set me up with a good r/r stop location......which no one knows if it'll happen the way I like it.

But for an XOM long at this point, I'd want the corrective back to $68.00. I'd want to be targeting $77.00ish, the ascending triangle projection, which is about +15% from a support entry at 68.00.

For a long at 68.00 with my preferred 10 r/r thing I'd want to risk 1.5% on the play, which would be about a 1 point stop, just under $67.00. If I got taken out, I'd might be a supporter at 66.00 with sub 1% stop (assuming the count was still good).

But if stopped out a second time I'd likely step aside and be satisfied that I'd risked/lost < 2.5% risk to attempt +15% or greater.

Best to ya.

By the way, Vector is bullish and I'm sitting on the sidelines after a quick +210 YM points in 3 long trades this morning. Impressive, this bull is

Beautiful, Spike; just beautiful I love to hear you talk! Thanks for the setup advice.

XOM has a lot of resistance at $70. If/when that busts, it's gonna pop nicely, I think. I do like that $68 entry.

[Gwhiz]

WHats your opinion on HTGC New born?

Alcoholic content

Lye,
I would agree that it isn't added water that would make wine taste so good. Watered down Coca-Cola isn't any better tasting, but actually much worse. But I would question your statement that the alcohol content of wine today is equivalent to that of 2000 years ago. Have you any proof you can offer?

But let's say you are correct that alcohol content of today's wine is equivalent to the alcohol content of 2000 years ago. They still "mixed the wine" as both the Scripture and extant literature points out. Therefore the wine, when it was consumed 2000 years ago, was much weaker than the way we consume it today. Comprende, amigo? Here is a quote (and the link from which it came)

"The June 20, 1975, issue of Christianity Today contained an interesting article by Robert H. Stein: "Wine-Drinking In New Testament Times." He observes that the wine used in ancient times was mixed with water in ratios of up to four parts water to one part wine. Mr. Stein explains:

In the Talmud, which contains the oral traditions of Judaism from about 200 BC to AD 200, there are several tractates in which the mixture of water and wine is discussed. One tractate (Shabbath 77a) states that wine that does not carry three parts water is not wine. The normal mixture is said to consist of two parts water to one part wine. In a most important reference (Pesahim 108b) it is stated that the four cups every Jew was to drink during the Passover ritual were to be mixed in a ratio of three parts water to one part wine. From this we can conclude with a fair degree of certainty that the fruit of the vine used at the institution of the Lord's Supper was a mixture of three parts water to one part wine. In another Jewish reference from around 60 BC, we read, "It is harmful to drink wine alone, or again, to drink water alone, while wine mixed with water is sweet and delicious and enhances one's enjoyment" (II Maccabees 15:39)".
Here's the link for that quote: http://www.rbc.org/bible_study/answe...ers/30797.aspx

Here is a quote (and the link it came from) that tells you that wine was the strongest drink in the ancient world, and lower alcoholic content than today's wines.
"Distillation was unknown in the ancient world (and would not be discovered until the early middle ages); wine, therefore, was the strongest drink of the Romans. Falernian was full-bodied (firmissima), with an alcohol content as much as fifteen or sixteen percent (at which point the yeast is killed by the alcohol it produces). A white wine, it was aged for ten to twenty years, until it was the color of amber (Pliny, XXXVII.12)".

Here's the link it came out of: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/...wine/wine.html

It's always been my understanding that the longer the grapes are left on the vine, the higher the alcoholic content, and the sugar content. Ergo, the sweetness of most after dinner liqeuers. I enjoyed the trip of my lifetime in a visit to Rome and Tuscany this summer and thoroughly enjoyed the Italian wines- three times a day. Italian wines are normally 3-6% alcohol content.
They ADD alcohol to ship to the USA. I suppose the same thing can be accomplished by letting the mash ferment for a longer time too. It's been a long time since I've done any reading on the subject. It's too bad they have to add alcohol, because I really enjoyed the lower alcohol varieties for lunch, late afternoon and dinner without getting a buzz or getting tired. Italians, as well as other Europeans do "cut" their wine with water many times. I suppose that's why Italian children are given a taste at a very young age.
rrrhumba

[spikefader]

Spike,
Thanks for the XOM post. Love those charts and the EW that I am not good at.

I take it you do not like the R/R on XOM. You posted no setup, no targets, etc. Si, como no?
Thanks for everything!

Yer welcome dude.

Do I like the R/R on XOM? Well, I think I'd be able to "manufacture" a good r/r setup on the trade.... I like 68.00 for the attempt, and I'd be waiting for price action to set me up with a good r/r stop location......which no one knows if it'll happen the way I like it.

But for an XOM long at this point, I'd want the corrective back to $68.00. I'd want to be targeting $77.00ish, the ascending triangle projection, which is about +15% from a support entry at 68.00.

For a long at 68.00 with my preferred 10 r/r thing I'd want to risk 1.5% on the play, which would be about a 1 point stop, just under $67.00. If I got taken out, I'd might be a supporter at 66.00 with sub 1% stop (assuming the count was still good).

But if stopped out a second time I'd likely step aside and be satisfied that I'd risked/lost < 2.5% risk to attempt +15% or greater.

Best to ya.

By the way, Vector is bullish and I'm sitting on the sidelines after a quick +210 YM points in 3 long trades this morning. Impressive, this bull is

[Lyehopper]

Well, I see things haven't changed much in the past few weeks. The market is making a new high and you guys are arguing over wine. LOL!

Lye, wine in Talmudic times was a concentrate (with the exception of Italian wines, which were of a much higher quality). That's why it was watered down; unadulterated, it was undrinkable. Less than a 2:1 mixture of water to wine concentrate wasn't drinkable so the normal dilution varied from 2:1 to 3:1. Italian wines did not need watered down to be drinkable but they were rarely found in the middle east except among the very wealthy, due to the high cost of transport.

BTW, there was no Christianity until after Jesus' death. Many theologians place the formal start around AD 30 - 35.

True, Jesus died in 33 (I think) and the formal congregations were formed after his death... BUT.... Christians follow Jesus' example and watered down or not, the wine back then contained alcohol and the moderate drinking of alcohol (not just for medicinal purposes) was not sinful. That's the only point I wanted to make. An interesting view point is found in Isaiah 1:21-23 where those watering down wine are spoken of in a negative light.... go figure?

Well, I see things haven't changed much in the past few weeks. The market is making a new high and you guys are arguing over wine. LOL!

Lye, wine in Talmudic times was a concentrate (with the exception of Italian wines, which were of a much higher quality). That's why it was watered down; unadulterated, it was undrinkable. Less than a 2:1 mixture of water to wine concentrate wasn't drinkable so the normal dilution varied from 2:1 to 3:1. Italian wines did not need watered down to be drinkable but they were rarely found in the middle east except among the very wealthy, due to the high cost of transport.

BTW, there was no Christianity until after Jesus' death. Many theologians place the formal start around AD 30 - 35.

[Lyehopper]

Lye,
I would agree that it isn't added water that would make wine taste so good. Watered down Coca-Cola isn't any better tasting, but actually much worse. But I would question your statement that the alcohol content of wine today is equivalent to that of 2000 years ago. Have you any proof you can offer?

But let's say you are correct that alcohol content of today's wine is equivalent to the alcohol content of 2000 years ago. They still "mixed the wine" as both the Scripture and extant literature points out. Therefore the wine, when it was consumed 2000 years ago, was much weaker than the way we consume it today. Comprende, amigo? Here is a quote (and the link from which it came)

"The June 20, 1975, issue of Christianity Today contained an interesting article by Robert H. Stein: "Wine-Drinking In New Testament Times." He observes that the wine used in ancient times was mixed with water in ratios of up to four parts water to one part wine. Mr. Stein explains:

In the Talmud, which contains the oral traditions of Judaism from about 200 BC to AD 200, there are several tractates in which the mixture of water and wine is discussed. One tractate (Shabbath 77a) states that wine that does not carry three parts water is not wine. The normal mixture is said to consist of two parts water to one part wine. In a most important reference (Pesahim 108b) it is stated that the four cups every Jew was to drink during the Passover ritual were to be mixed in a ratio of three parts water to one part wine. From this we can conclude with a fair degree of certainty that the fruit of the vine used at the institution of the Lord's Supper was a mixture of three parts water to one part wine. In another Jewish reference from around 60 BC, we read, "It is harmful to drink wine alone, or again, to drink water alone, while wine mixed with water is sweet and delicious and enhances one's enjoyment" (II Maccabees 15:39)".
Here's the link for that quote: http://www.rbc.org/bible_study/answe...ers/30797.aspx

Here is a quote (and the link it came from) that tells you that wine was the strongest drink in the ancient world, and lower alcoholic content than today's wines.
"Distillation was unknown in the ancient world (and would not be discovered until the early middle ages); wine, therefore, was the strongest drink of the Romans. Falernian was full-bodied (firmissima), with an alcohol content as much as fifteen or sixteen percent (at which point the yeast is killed by the alcohol it produces). A white wine, it was aged for ten to twenty years, until it was the color of amber (Pliny, XXXVII.12)".

Here's the link it came out of: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/...wine/wine.html

The Maccabbees is not inspired Scripture. The wine in Bible times contained alcohol. PERIOD! It was not forbidden to drink it in the inspired scriptures. PERIOD! Jesus had a problem with all the little rules the self righteous Jewish religious leaders of his day were throwing on the people. Matthew 23:1-37.... So just because the Jews at that time were watering down their wine does not mean it was required by a Christian. While Jesus was of Jewish blood he was a Christian and he was the founder of the Christian faith was he not? He was not under Jewish law was he? He drank alcoholic beverage, did he not?. He produced alcoholic beverage, did he not? It's simple, watered down or not, drinking alcohol is not a sin..... Drunkeness is....PERIOD! So brother NBB, go drink a glass of fine red wine for your stomach's sake.... and be careful not the swallow a camel in the process.

[billyjoe]

Newborn,
Just got out some labels from grandfather's winery. These were heavily regulated by the state and federal governments. Here are the % alcohol contents at least from 1934-1958.

Sweet Concord---12%
Ohio Concord-----18
American Port----18-20
American White Port-18
Ohio Apple--13
American Apple--20
American Sherry--18-20
Ohio Sherry--13
Ohio Haut Sauterne--12
Ohio Sauterne--13
American Tokay--18
Ohio Blackberry--13
Ives Seedling--13
Cherry Wine--12
Ohio Dry Catawba--12
Ohio Catawba--13
Sweet Catawba--16
American Claret--12
Ohio Grape--13
Ohio Dry Grape--13
Ohio Delaware--13
Hard Cider-- <7

------------billyjoe