When other Christians condemn

[Josiah]

Does anyone have any specific examples of what you would say to those who are condemning others?

Something akin to "shut your f___________ m_________?" (perhaps accompanied by a certain hand gesture). j/k I would NOT recommend that.


I noted my pov in post # 2. As for "saying something," IMO, the "problem" is more fundamental than a quick reply would address. If it's addressed to me, "sorry" is likely the best that can be said in that situation..... unless we have a couple of hours (hopefully with a bottle of Glenlevit).





.

 

[David Crosby]

As Jesus said"...cast the first stone"

 

[tango]

We've probably all been around other Christians who have condemned others for what they insist is "sin" yet isn't stated as such in the bible. Some Christians think that drinking is a sin yet Paul encouraged Timothy to drink a little wine for his stomach ailments. I've heard Christians condemn other Christians because they drink. What kinds of things do you say to them?

It's generally not useful to look for a one-size-fits-all response to that sort of situation. I think it depends whether the person concerned is genuinely condemning something, whether they believe it's sinful but are open to reasoning, or whether they are just trying to misapply Scripture in an attempt to force compliance with their worldview.

Some people genuinely believe that Christians don't drink and appear surprised to realise that some of us do. Some people will have merely grown up in a dry house and assumed, some will have a genuine belief that drinking is sinful and be open to Scriptural reasoning.

On the other hand some people use all sorts of silly reasoning and manipulative logic to try and make their case. Some use an argument that boils down to little more than "alcohol is sinful, we are supposed to avoid sin, therefore we must avoid alcohol because it's sinful." It's generally not difficult to come up with a circular argument that concludes what you assumed in the first place. Then there are the ones who say "The world (whatever that is) drinks alcohol, we are not to be like the world, therefore we must not drink alcohol", which breaks because "the world" also drives cars, wears clothes, eats food etc and yet none of those things are prohibited.

Finally you get the really fun ones who pull the "don't cause a brother to stumble" logic from 1Co 8 and who come up with all sorts of contorted reasoning about how a recovering alcoholic might see a Christian drink, figure it's OK to drink and start down their road to destruction again. That logic fails because it doesn't seem to apply to anything else - we don't worry that a recovering anorexic might see an overweight Christian starting a diet and decide to stop eating again, or a recovering bulimic seeing something like the spread at a Mennonite fellowship meal and start bingeing again. (Of course there's a time for sensitivity, such as not meeting a recovering alcoholic in the bar, but we're not talking about that here). Then there are the ones who claim to be offended by the sight of Christians drinking as if that was a trump card, but Paul was talking about a weaker brother rather than a controlling brother. Sometimes the best counter for that kind of reasoning is to claim to be offended by their very presence, thereby meaning that under their own logic they have to leave.

 

[tango]

If I were a Christian, and I decided to have a beer and another Christian tried to condemn me for it, I would likely respond with something along the lines of "the casting of stones should be left to those without sin, am I not right, brother?"

That only goes so far - that was a specific situation where the scribes and Pharisees were trying to trap Jesus into a no-win situation and he broke out of it. When the woman was caught in adultery, "in the very act", the law of Moses demanded she be executed. But if she was caught "in the very act" we can reasonably assume that a man was also present and the law also called for him to be executed (Lev 20:10).

If people are looking to cast metaphorical stones, in the sense of passing judgment on us for lifestyle choices that aren't sinful, or even seeking to condemn us for sinful behaviors, we might fall back on the "let him without sin..." line. But in the light of Gal 6:1 we should be willing to be corrected, humbly and in love, by our Christian brothers and sisters. Hence if the person was genuinely acting out of concern that we had fallen (or were falling) into a sinful lifestyle it makes more sense to discuss and reason with them rather than brush them aside because they aren't perfect either.

 

[MarkFL]

If people are looking to cast metaphorical stones, in the sense of passing judgment on us for lifestyle choices that aren't sinful, or even seeking to condemn us for sinful behaviors, we might fall back on the "let him without sin..."

That's pretty much how I was picturing it...a meddler not concerned about my well-being, but simply casting judgement upon my actions.

 

[tango]

In my OP I wasn't meaning anything about getting drunk since I think perhaps we all feel that's a sin? There are Christians who frown upon any small bit of drinking and condemn those who do it.

Does anyone have any specific examples of what you would say to those who are condemning others?

Really the only thing to do is to go to Scripture and ask them to demonstrate that it is a sin.

Some verses get pulled around as if they make the case against drinking in moderation when they really don't (e.g. Eph 5:18, Prov 20:1). Sometimes the notion that the Nazirites had to vow to avoid anything made from grapes, but that doesn't apply to anyone who isn't a Nazirite and if people want to follow that they also have to avoid grape juice, raisins, fresh grapes etc (Num 6). They also aren't allowed to go to funerals, even for family members, because he "shall not go near a dead body" (Num 6:6-7).

The verse in Proverbs about "those who linger long at the wine" (Prov 23:29-30) starts to fall down as soon as you ask about those who linger at the wine but not for very long. In context we also have to consider what it means to "go in search of mixed wine" and whether this means blending Merlot with Malbec or adding other ingredients to it in order to make it more intoxicating. Looking at more context Prov 23:31 talks of "looking on the wine when it is red, when it sparkles in the cup" which would suggest (to me at least) that it refers to wine with something added, because when I drink red wine it generally doesn't sparkle in the cup.

The approach I often use (although usually online, I don't think I hang out with any Christians who have a problem with me having a beer or two) is to show that some things are mandated (e.g. loving God), and some things are prohibited (e.g. adultery), and if anything is neither mandated nor prohibited then we get to decide for ourselves whether to do it. That might include having a beer, dancing, wearing a blue hat with green pants on a Thursday and so on.

 

[psalms 91]

Bill, as dashing a figure you would likely be sporting a pair of "Daisy Dukes," I'd still have to choose Renske in bib overalls. :rofl3:

lol heavens no, I was thinking ofg Messy

 

[MoreCoffee]

Catholics usually cannot be totally abstemious regarding alcoholic beverages because communion wine is (by definition) alcohol containing wine. It is to be naturally fermented, never fortified, not laced with preservatives and so forth. It is rather close in formulation to "kosher" except no Rabbi is required to bless or pray over it.

 

[MarkFL]

lol heavens no, I was thinking ofg Messy

Yeah, I was just being silly, as I am wont to be.

 

[Lamb]

[MENTION=277]David Crosby[/MENTION] brought up an excellent point about Jesus turning water into wine. If drinking was indeed a sin, Jesus could not be able to encourage anyone to sin by turning water into wine. I think that's what I want to discuss with anyone who thought they were being "helpful" by insisting it's a sin.

 

[David Crosby]

[MENTION=277]David Crosby[/MENTION] brought up an excellent point about Jesus turning water into wine. If drinking was indeed a sin, Jesus could not be able to encourage anyone to sin by turning water into wine. I think that's what I want to discuss with anyone who thought they were being "helpful" by insisting it's a sin.

Some go to great lengths to show that what Jesus made here was really grape juice (non fermented). While some find that line of thinking convincing, it is not the opinion of Scripture. Good wine is good wine, not good grape juice. It is true that wine in that day, as commonly served, had a much lower content of alcohol than modern wine. But it was still wine. Point being, Jesus is not going to produce a miracle of sinfulness. But, with that being said, Satan is always in the business of taking what God has made for good and perverting it (ie. Hab 2:15 "Woe to him who gives drink to his neighbor, pressing him to your bottle, even to make him drunk, that you may look on his nakedness!).

 

[Stravinsk]

Some go to great lengths to show that what Jesus made here was really grape juice (non fermented). While some find that line of thinking convincing, it is not the opinion of Scripture. Good wine is good wine, not good grape juice. It is true that wine in that day, as commonly served, had a much lower content of alcohol than modern wine. But it was still wine. Point being, Jesus is not going to produce a miracle of sinfulness. But, with that being said, Satan is always in the business of taking what God has made for good and perverting it (ie. Hab 2:15 "Woe to him who gives drink to his neighbor, pressing him to your bottle, even to make him drunk, that you may look on his nakedness!).

I often here Christians say that the wine "had a much lower alcohol content". This simply does not make sense if one knows anything about fermentation of grapes. Unless the grapes had lower sugar content, then the amount of alcohol produced is directly correlated to the amount of time the juice was left to ferment. If it is the same amount of time, it is the same amount of fermentation and hence the same amount of alcohol. A wine's alcohol content (and residue sweetness from the grapes used to make it) is directly connected this main factor and nothing else.

Your stance on the general sin of "too much" is probably correct - but I do feel it is prudent to mention that the passage quoted and the book it is quoted from (even that chapter) (Habakkuk 2) has a much broader scope - even with it's reference to wine - which is used as a metaphor for foolishness and foolish teachings - and a particular man who gives them.

 

[David Crosby]

I often here Christians say that the wine "had a much lower alcohol content". This simply does not make sense if one knows anything about fermentation of grapes. Unless the grapes had lower sugar content, then the amount of alcohol produced is directly correlated to the amount of time the juice was left to ferment. If it is the same amount of time, it is the same amount of fermentation and hence the same amount of alcohol. A wine's alcohol content (and residue sweetness from the grapes used to make it) is directly connected this main factor and nothing else.

Your stance on the general sin of "too much" is probably correct - but I do feel it is prudent to mention that the passage quoted and the book it is quoted from (even that chapter) (Habakkuk 2) has a much broader scope - even with it's reference to wine - which is used as a metaphor for foolishness and foolish teachings - and a particular man who gives them.

Yes I think Habakkuk is referring to the Babylonians barbaric actions if I remember right. But the metaphor is used in its truth. And no I'm not a wine expert, just going from info I've read. I can't help but relating it to some of the high octane wine like ol' Mad Dag 20/20. Anyway, point taken.

 

[David Crosby]

Yes I think Habakkuk is referring to the Babylonians barbaric actions if I remember right. But the metaphor is used in its truth. And no I'm not a wine expert, just going from info I've read. I can't help but relating it to some of the high octane wine like ol' Mad Dag 20/20. Anyway, point taken.

I mean Mad Dog 20/20...must be the wine...

 

[tango]

[MENTION=277]David Crosby[/MENTION] brought up an excellent point about Jesus turning water into wine. If drinking was indeed a sin, Jesus could not be able to encourage anyone to sin by turning water into wine. I think that's what I want to discuss with anyone who thought they were being "helpful" by insisting it's a sin.

Some of the arguments about that insist that Jesus turned the water into a really good (non alcoholic) grape juice. I'm aware there is some discussion over the precise meanings of the Greek word oinos, although in the context of the wider passage we see the comment "Every man at the beginning sets out the good wine, and when the guests have well drunk, then the inferior. You have kept the good wine until now!" (John 2:10, NKJV) which raises a few questions. We need to consider what it means by "when the guests have well drunk" (other versions say things like "had a lot to drink", "had too much to drink") and whether, in the context of giving them the good stuff first and then the inferior stuff, this relates to being at least somewhat intoxicated such that the difference between the good stuff and the cheap stuff is less apparent or, as suggested by Albert Barnes, merely that they had drunk enough good quality product that their tastes were less discerning of a cheaper variation regardless of whether either product contained any alcohol. (Barnes also notes that turning water into anything other than water, and whether the finished product was alcoholic or not isn't relevant to the fact it was a miracle that the water changed at all.)

Of course there's also silly circular reasoning in abundance about the water-to-wine miracle, that goes along the lines of "alcohol is sinful, Jesus never sinned, therefore Jesus didn't turn water into alcoholic wine because that would encourage sin, therefore it must have been regular grape juice", once again doing little more than confirming the initial assumption via many steps.

 

[tango]

I often here Christians say that the wine "had a much lower alcohol content". This simply does not make sense if one knows anything about fermentation of grapes. Unless the grapes had lower sugar content, then the amount of alcohol produced is directly correlated to the amount of time the juice was left to ferment. If it is the same amount of time, it is the same amount of fermentation and hence the same amount of alcohol. A wine's alcohol content (and residue sweetness from the grapes used to make it) is directly connected this main factor and nothing else.

Your stance on the general sin of "too much" is probably correct - but I do feel it is prudent to mention that the passage quoted and the book it is quoted from (even that chapter) (Habakkuk 2) has a much broader scope - even with it's reference to wine - which is used as a metaphor for foolishness and foolish teachings - and a particular man who gives them.

I don't see an inherent problem with the "lower alcohol content" argument given that at least some wine of today is fortified. There's also the potential difference between fermenting with commercially supplied yeast that can withstand a higher alcohol concentration, and fermenting with naturally occurring yeasts that potentially leave a wine with a lower alcohol content.

In many ways it's irrelevant, if alcohol is sinful even in moderation then a wine with a lower alcohol content still has alcohol in it and is therefore sinful. If it's only sinful to get drunk then the determining factor is how much alcohol is consumed rather than how much other liquid is consumed at the same time (e.g. 5 shots of whisky or 5 pints of beer may have comparable effects on our intoxication). Even then I'm not sure it's entirely fair to say that getting mildly intoxicated occasionally is strictly sinful - I think we would have to consider circumstance, motivation etc. Looking at what was said about the wine Jesus made there are references to "when the guests have well drunk", "when the guests have had too much to drink" etc (it varies by version, the original Greek methuo suggests intoxication. Although it's not explicitly stated whether Jesus was a party to this conversation or even aware of it taking place it doesn't seem unreasonable to assume that Jesus was at least familiar with local customs and would know that drinking wine, in some quantity, was considered "the done thing" at weddings. It also appears from the text that not only did Jesus not speak against it but went as far as providing more drink for those present. Perhaps he produced alcohol-free grape juice as a means of showing a better way, perhaps he produced something we would recognise as wine today to allow the guests to continue to make merry. Either way, the fact Jesus apparently did not speak out against the consumption of wine in the context of the wedding does raise a question over whether mild intoxication, assuming it doesn't lead to behaving in a way not becoming of a Christian, is such a bad thing.

In the light of Eph 5:18, Prov 20:1 etc I think we have to conclude that habitual drunkenness is inappropriate for a Christian and if alcohol replaces God as a primary driver of our lives then we have a major problem, but in this regard alcohol is arguably no different from work, football, or anything else that might look to take the top spot in our lives. If our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit then it's inappropriate to abuse them. But on the other hand I'm not sure that, providing the context doesn't raise other issues such as drinking and driving, having a glass or three with friends during fellowship is going to get us condemned automatically.

 

[Stravinsk]

I don't see an inherent problem with the "lower alcohol content" argument given that at least some wine of today is fortified. There's also the potential difference between fermenting with commercially supplied yeast that can withstand a higher alcohol concentration, and fermenting with naturally occurring yeasts that potentially leave a wine with a lower alcohol content.

The inherent problem is simply the assumption of lowered alcohol content to fit a moral narrative on consuming it. Fortified wine is usually labeled as such or is known to be such as in a bottle of port wine. Otherwise normal reds and whites do not fall into this category.

As for commercially supplied yeast - normal wine yeast does not yield more than a 12-14% alcohol content and the "super yeasts" (Turbo yeast) are designed not for wine - but for people making their own spirits - with yields up to 20% or more. The fact that a yeast is manufactured and supplied via the market doesn't mean all or most wine makers use it or that the standard yeasts yield a higher alcohol content because of it compared to times past. There is more to alcohol percentage than just the yeast used. I once made a raisin wine from raisins (as the main source of sugar) and yeast (cultivated from raisins myself). All natural raisin wine, no added sugar, natural (not commercial) yeast - and the alcohol content, while not measured - was extremely strong by taste, easily stronger than a commercial wine. That being said, I could not draw the opposite conclusion that naturally made wines "have MORE alcohol content" - the opposite argument. The reason it cannot be made is the same reason the "less alcohol" content cannot be made. It simply assumes too much about how long the product was fermented and what the original materials were. I've made regular wine (grapes) from scratch using raisin yeast and get a typical alcohol content depending on whether I let it ferment out dry or stop the fermentation at some point for residue sweetness.

In many ways it's irrelevant, if alcohol is sinful even in moderation then a wine with a lower alcohol content still has alcohol in it and is therefore sinful. If it's only sinful to get drunk then the determining factor is how much alcohol is consumed rather than how much other liquid is consumed at the same time (e.g. 5 shots of whisky or 5 pints of beer may have comparable effects on our intoxication). Even then I'm not sure it's entirely fair to say that getting mildly intoxicated occasionally is strictly sinful - I think we would have to consider circumstance, motivation etc. Looking at what was said about the wine Jesus made there are references to "when the guests have well drunk", "when the guests have had too much to drink" etc (it varies by version, the original Greek methuo suggests intoxication. Although it's not explicitly stated whether Jesus was a party to this conversation or even aware of it taking place it doesn't seem unreasonable to assume that Jesus was at least familiar with local customs and would know that drinking wine, in some quantity, was considered "the done thing" at weddings. It also appears from the text that not only did Jesus not speak against it but went as far as providing more drink for those present. Perhaps he produced alcohol-free grape juice as a means of showing a better way, perhaps he produced something we would recognise as wine today to allow the guests to continue to make merry. Either way, the fact Jesus apparently did not speak out against the consumption of wine in the context of the wedding does raise a question over whether mild intoxication, assuming it doesn't lead to behaving in a way not becoming of a Christian, is such a bad thing.

It all sounds reasonable, I know. I drink myself (should be obvious from various posts and my beer making thread) - but at the end of the day - alcohol is a poison. Pure and simple. It does not contribute positively to human biology - it only robs us of water, vitamins, minerals and changes essential fats. On this basis alone I do find it doubtful that Yeshua had anything to do with making *fermented* grape juice. His Nazarite status also meant he was not to consume it himself.

In the light of Eph 5:18, Prov 20:1 etc I think we have to conclude that habitual drunkenness is inappropriate for a Christian and if alcohol replaces God as a primary driver of our lives then we have a major problem, but in this regard alcohol is arguably no different from work, football, or anything else that might look to take the top spot in our lives. If our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit then it's inappropriate to abuse them. But on the other hand I'm not sure that, providing the context doesn't raise other issues such as drinking and driving, having a glass or three with friends during fellowship is going to get us condemned automatically.

Agree - but I don't personally worry about condemnation for actions I take myself that only affect myself. Nor do I feel it is my privilege or my business to make some negative judgement about someone else who does the same thing. The only appropriate response to said situation is compassion.

 

[tango]

The inherent problem is simply the assumption of lowered alcohol content to fit a moral narrative on consuming it. Fortified wine is usually labeled as such or is known to be such as in a bottle of port wine. Otherwise normal reds and whites do not fall into this category.

Agreed, noting the irony in the simultaneous claims that "alcohol is sinful" and "the wine had reduced alcohol"

As for commercially supplied yeast - normal wine yeast does not yield more than a 12-14% alcohol content and the "super yeasts" (Turbo yeast) are designed not for wine - but for people making their own spirits - with yields up to 20% or more. The fact that a yeast is manufactured and supplied via the market doesn't mean all or most wine makers use it or that the standard yeasts yield a higher alcohol content because of it compared to times past. There is more to alcohol percentage than just the yeast used. I once made a raisin wine from raisins (as the main source of sugar) and yeast (cultivated from raisins myself). All natural raisin wine, no added sugar, natural (not commercial) yeast - and the alcohol content, while not measured - was extremely strong by taste, easily stronger than a commercial wine. That being said, I could not draw the opposite conclusion that naturally made wines "have MORE alcohol content" - the opposite argument. The reason it cannot be made is the same reason the "less alcohol" content cannot be made. It simply assumes too much about how long the product was fermented and what the original materials were. I've made regular wine (grapes) from scratch using raisin yeast and get a typical alcohol content depending on whether I let it ferment out dry or stop the fermentation at some point for residue sweetness.

I realise beers and wines aren't the same but having had a few lambic beers that were made from fruit using only the yeast naturally occurring in and on the fruit I have to wonder. The lambics were around 2-3% alcohol whereas most beers I drink are more like 5-8% and the stronger ones can be more or less anything.

It all sounds reasonable, I know. I drink myself (should be obvious from various posts and my beer making thread) - but at the end of the day - alcohol is a poison. Pure and simple. It does not contribute positively to human biology - it only robs us of water, vitamins, minerals and changes essential fats. On this basis alone I do find it doubtful that Yeshua had anything to do with making *fermented* grape juice. His Nazarite status also meant he was not to consume it himself.

Jesus couldn't have been a Nazirite or he wouldn't have been allowed to handle grapes, or anything derived from them, at all.

Agree - but I don't personally worry about condemnation for actions I take myself that only affect myself. Nor do I feel it is my privilege or my business to make some negative judgement about someone else who does the same thing. The only appropriate response to said situation is compassion.

I don't think we can read Gal 6:1 and conclude that we should just shrug and feel compassion. We shouldn't be haughty, nor should we condemn, but neither should we just turn a blind eye. Maybe one day it will be us that needs a bit of loving correction.

 

[Stravinsk]

I realise beers and wines aren't the same but having had a few lambic beers that were made from fruit using only the yeast naturally occurring in and on the fruit I have to wonder. The lambics were around 2-3% alcohol whereas most beers I drink are more like 5-8% and the stronger ones can be more or less anything.

Alcohol content is determined by 3 things:

1) The amount of fermentable sugar to start with
2) The type of yeast used
3) The amount of time it is left to ferment.
4) The conditions of fermentation

All of these play a role in how much alcohol is produced. For example, given the same quantities - grape juice will produce more alcohol than strawberry juice because they contain more sugar. But a grape juice can be stopped mid fermentation to produce a wine with less alcohol and more residual sugar. Sugar content is a big factor in alcohol produced - but only up to a point. After a certain percentage of alcohol is present, the yeast starts to die off due to that alcohol concentration.

It's not really fair to draw a conclusion based on what someone has prepared for consumption - as if everything is the same and no time or ingredient factors play a role in the final product.

Jesus couldn't have been a Nazirite or he wouldn't have been allowed to handle grapes, or anything derived from them, at all.

From memory the law is not to drink alcoholic drink at all, can you point out the additional prohibitions from the law?

If Nazareth is simply a town and there is absolutely no connection to the Nazarite law/rituals with Yeshua - which are lengthy and detailed - then how can Yeshua have fulfilled all the law? He must have, else He cannot be Messiah.

I don't think we can read Gal 6:1 and conclude that we should just shrug and feel compassion. We shouldn't be haughty, nor should we condemn, but neither should we just turn a blind eye. Maybe one day it will be us that needs a bit of loving correction.

Not that I give Saul/Paul's words any weight here - but wouldn't it be likely that he is talking about someone who actually wants help with their issue? Otherwise that "restoration" can take some form of force in the form of strict laws and punishments if applied from a societal point of view.

 

[tango]

Alcohol content is determined by 3 things:

1) The amount of fermentable sugar to start with
2) The type of yeast used
3) The amount of time it is left to ferment.
4) The conditions of fermentation

All of these play a role in how much alcohol is produced. For example, given the same quantities - grape juice will produce more alcohol than strawberry juice because they contain more sugar. But a grape juice can be stopped mid fermentation to produce a wine with less alcohol and more residual sugar. Sugar content is a big factor in alcohol produced - but only up to a point. After a certain percentage of alcohol is present, the yeast starts to die off due to that alcohol concentration.

It's not really fair to draw a conclusion based on what someone has prepared for consumption - as if everything is the same and no time or ingredient factors play a role in the final product.

Sure, and in the context of the alcohol content of wine the most likely causes for variation between then and now would be the type of yeast and the conditions, given that I'd assume a grape is a grape is a grape and they haven't changed a whole lot. Either way I don't see there's a specific reason to discount wine from 2000 years ago having a lower alcohol content, whether by design or circumstance, but it doesn't really make a difference. If the underlying question is whether alcohol is sinful then the issue with what Jesus produced is whether it was wine as we'd know it today (i.e. alcoholic) or completely free from alcohol.

From memory the law is not to drink alcoholic drink at all, can you point out the additional prohibitions from the law?

It's all in Numbers 6 (I've quoted the first few verses here, you can read the rest if you're interested)

Num 6:1-6 NKJV Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, (2) "Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: 'When either a man or woman consecrates an offering to take the vow of a Nazirite, to separate himself to the LORD, (3) he shall separate himself from wine and similar drink; he shall drink neither vinegar made from wine nor vinegar made from similar drink; neither shall he drink any grape juice, nor eat fresh grapes or raisins. (4) All the days of his separation he shall eat nothing that is produced by the grapevine, from seed to skin. (5) 'All the days of the vow of his separation no razor shall come upon his head; until the days are fulfilled for which he separated himself to the LORD, he shall be holy. Then he shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow. (6) All the days that he separates himself to the LORD he shall not go near a dead body.

If Jesus had taken the Nazirite vows he would have broken them. When he talked of not eating of the fruit of the vine at the Last Supper he would have broken it; he would have broken it when he went into the tomb where the dead Lazarus lay and he would probably have broken it again when he took the vinegar while on the cross.

If Nazareth is simply a town and there is absolutely no connection to the Nazarite law/rituals with Yeshua - which are lengthy and detailed - then how can Yeshua have fulfilled all the law? He must have, else He cannot be Messiah.

Why does Jesus have to fulfil every part of laws that don't apply to him to be the Messiah? He can be a Nazarene without being a Nazirite.

Not that I give Saul/Paul's words any weight here - but wouldn't it be likely that he is talking about someone who actually wants help with their issue? Otherwise that "restoration" can take some form of force in the form of strict laws and punishments if applied from a societal point of view.

Not necessarily, the text says "if a man is overtaken..." rather than "if a man seeks help with...". Of course it needs to be done with tact and humility, lest we also be tempted. In many ways it's really no different to what we might regard as the basics of looking out for each other. If someone is walking towards a cliff edge and apparently oblivious of their pending doom doesn't it make sense to shout at them to warn them, even if they didn't explicitly ask for help?