Do the gospels report that Jesus liked his food and wine with nasty people, sometimes to excess?

[oldbadger]

The problem with your view is not that Jesus Christ drank wine, enjoyed good food, loved people and enjoyed a meal with people it’s that you cross the line when you say he got inebriated, which He never did otherwise it would’ve been a sin. The Bible says He never sinned or deceit found in His mouth. You yourself said you never said Jesus sinned yet you say He did because you said He got inebriated on occasion.

No, Elisha, I crossed no line. You would need to actually show the verse which tells that Jesus never sinned, and then I would show you verses which showed that he did.
I said that drinking enough wine to be inebriated is no sin, and even then I do not recognise sin like you must do.
Why you are so worried about drinking wine to inebriation is strange, I think. Do you worry so much about all the others?
The Jesus I read about on the gospels was a man who campaigned for social justice and an end to Temple corruption. I do not recognise him as God who created trillions of star systems in billions of galaxies but who then came to this tiny planet after 13+ billion years to save humans.... the idea is just very strange to me. So the Jesus I believe in was a man and who he drank and ate with I care not a hoot.

 

[oldbadger]

You have been demonstrating so many obvious examples of projection - it's fascinating - and also a bit scary that you don't see it.

Have you been conditioned in some way to not be self-aware? To believe that you can claim whatever you want without evidence and without being challenged?

You don't need to use proper nouns to refer to me at all.

Notice how I have only used your name once? And I only did that to make fun of the fact that you kept using mine.

Now - why did you skip over the parts where I proved that your claims about the Lord Jesus Christ wanting to destroy the Priesthood and the Temple were "rubbish"?

He taught His followers to go to the Temple and His Apostles continued to go to the Temple after His death and Resurrection.

And He also gave the Priesthood to His disciples - so on what are you basing this obviously erroneous claim?

No - I didn't "turn" anything - that is what winebibber means. It is what it has always meant.

I made that plain - not only from referencing a dictionary before - but also when I quoted from Proverbs.

"Be not among winebibbers; among riotuous eaters of flesh:

For the drunkard and the glutton shall come to poverty: and drowsiness shall clothe a man with rags."(Proverbs 23:20-21)

Winebibber = Drunkard and "Riotuous eaters of flesh" = Glutton

I provide references - quotes - scriptural evidence - for all my claims while you provide nothing.

It's sad - but expected.

A perfect example of your projection. Thank you for this. It is so satisfying to see.

They had no choice in the matter - everyone knew and saw Him eating with publicans and sinners.

Not only that - but the most important thing is that the New Testament records that He ate with publicans and sinners.

The New Testament does not record the Lord Jesus Christ ever becoming inebriated or that He was a winebibber (an alcoholic or drunkard that prefers wine).

Another perfect example of your projection. Thank you.

You used my name again after I told you not to.

So - in your opinion - I should believe that both John the Baptist and the Lord Jesus Christ were possessed by devils and that they perform their works by the power of the "prince of the devils" - and were both therefore "mad" men?

Because these are other claims made by the enemies of John the Baptist and the Lord Jesus Christ.

I asked you if you believed these thing - but you did not answer - so I will ask you again - do you believe these things?

If not - aren't you "cherry-picking your truths, your words, your verses to suit what you believe to be your mumbo-jumbo"?

Answer the question - do you believe these things? If you don't - then you are being hypocritical.

The New Testament does not claim that the Lord Jesus Christ was the son of Joseph - it actually claims that He was the Only Begotten Son of God.

Now - you don't have to believe it - but that is what the New Testament claims.

You can't claim that the New Testament claims things that it doesn't - or "cherry-pick" what you agree with and ignore the rest.

Another perfect example of your projection. Thank you.

You have been claiming that I am wrong for believing that the enemies of the Lord Jesus Christ told some truths as well as falsehoods.

You claimed that I was "cherry-picking" for doing that.

Yet here you are claiming they exact same thing - that you believe that not "everything enemies said is wrong, or untrue."

That is exactly what I have been saying - and you disparaged me for it - but you are doing the same thing here.

Complete and total hypocrisy.

Discerning something being true or not has nothing to do with indoctrination or bigotry - but obtaining knowledge, understanding and good judgment - which are skills that you seem to lack.

What are these "helpful" claims that Celsus made and why do you value the opinion of Origen over what the New Testament claims?

You have yet to offer what Celsus claimed or anything said by Origen - so you have zero basis from claiming that I would not accept anything or that I am prejudiced.

Why do you feel like you can just say whatever you want without evidence?

LMAO

Wow - such blatant hypocrisy.

You criticized me so many times for not believing the claims made by the enemies of the Lord Jesus Christ - but here you are claiming not to believe them either - about Beelzebub.

You are literally doing the same thing you claimed that I was wrong for doing.

A perfect example of your hypocrisy. Thank you.

You do not even have a single example of this.

All you have is me looking at the claim made by the enemies of the Lord Jesus Christ - comparing it to what is taught in the Law and the Prophets and the Gospels - and coming to the conclusion that they are not true.

You are free to believe whatever you want about the Lord Jesus Christ - but both the dictionary and the Bible claim that winebibber means alcoholic or drunkard.

These are facts.

You used my name again after I told yo not to.

Presenting facts and evidence is not "spinning" anything.

I know the approach is foreign to you - but most of the world feels the need to provide supporting evidence for the claims they make.

You don't need to use any proper nouns to refer to me at all.

Yes - but you quoted from the New Testament the times that the Lord Jesus Christ recounted His enemies' claims that He was a "gluttonous winebibber".

You believed - erroneously - that these accusations by His enemies were true and supported your claim that He "got inebriated sometimes".

This is what I claimed - that - "You claimed in the OP and elsewhere that the claims made by the enemies of the Lord Jesus Christ - that He was a gluttonous winebibber - were true."

This is exactly what you did.

You didn't know that "winebibber" meant alcoholic or drunkard.

You didn't know that the Law and the Prophets condemned the practice of becoming drunk or inebriated.

You didn't know that God forbade His people from becoming "gluttonous winebibbers" and commanded them to not even associate with such.

You didn't know that the Law gave parents authority to execute their children who had become "gluttonous winebibbers".

You didn't know that this quote was actually the Lord Jesus Christ rebuking His enemies - proving their hypocrisy - and exposing that they were willing to pervert the Law to justify murder.

All you have offered us is your ignorance.

No - I have - yet again - exposed your hypocrisy.

If you believe one claim - why not all of them?

If you believe the claim that the Lord Jesus Christ was a winebibber - then you should also believe that he was possessed by a devil.

Otherwise you are "cherry-picking"

So - what's it going to be?

The Lord Jesus Christ eating with publicans and sinners was not a "claim" made by His enemies - but an observation.

They - and everyone else - literally saw Him doing this.

What no one saw - on the other hand - was evidence that He was a winebibber.

That is the claim - a baseless claim - a claim without any evidence supporting it.

I understand that you may not see a need for evidence - but most other people do.

Another perfect example of your projection. Thank you.

All throughout this "discussion" you claimed that I was ignorant - and I said nothing.

I didn't care. You had every right to share your opinion.

It was not until you started screaming "foul" when I claimed that you were ignorant - that I started biting back a bit.

You were the one dishing out the insults - but then cried when you got a little push back.

So hypocritical. No self-awareness.

Evidence?

How much you wanna bet I get another "TLDR"?

Another post of ranting waffle from you, Fallen Prophet.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Sources please!

Read the book

 

[Brickjectivity]

But he certainly is said to have frequented the company of undesirables.

Such as his 12 disciples. They were each in some way undesireable. Judas was a Sicario (Iscariot). Peter was a fisherman and not a good man. James and John were argumentative and hot headed. etc etc. These were not good people, the sort of people you'd seek out to give business loans. They lacked potential. I am serious about this. These were the worst twelve disciples available.

So Jesus did NOT eat or drink to excess, and did NOT sit with very nasty people. Correct?

There was the wedding where he turned giant jugs of water into wine. I presume the wine was distributed in tiny plastic cups that couldn't get anyone drunk, but I might be wrong about it. :satire: Its possible that some people were drunk at the wedding, but Jewish weddings are not described in scripture. Perhaps celebrants only dip the tips of their fingers in the wine and suck it off, like in a ritual? A wedding is already joyous enough without getting drunk so why would they need to be drunk. Makes no sense. I'm sure Jesus would never get drunk at a wedding, because he was Jewish. :notserious:

 

[exchemist]

Oh I expect that Jesus did enjoy his wine, and sometimes maybe a little too much, but I don't see him as a perfect puritan God, but a man who had a mission. He displayed human emotions and actions as described in the gospels, sometimes preparing his men for violence, sometimes being violent himself... It's all there to read about.
To push an inebriated person on to 'alcoholic' in order to dismiss claims made by folks who observed Jesus with his friends at table is a waste of time, I think.
Let the first Christian free of sin make a big fuss of a person getting inebriated, I suggest....

I confess I don't understand why you are so keen to push the idea of Jesus getting drunk - unless you yourself get drunk a lot and it would make you feel better to think he did the same. The gospels are completely silent on this. All we know is that Jesus did, like just about all his compatriots, drink wine.

But there is more general evidence from his teaching that he regarded self-control as important - as in fact do just about all religious teachers, in every religion.

 

[ElishaElijah]

No, Elisha, I crossed no line. You would need to actually show the verse which tells that Jesus never sinned, and then I would show you verses which showed that he did.

Ok go for it, here are some verses about His sinlessness.
10 Bible verses about Jesus Christ, Sinlessness

 

[Shadow11]

He was at a wedding and made more wine when it ran out I'm sure he had a few glasses Having a few glasses and feeling the wine is normal it was also a staple drink like milk is today even kids drank the wine. But claiming he was a stumbling inebriated drunk from whats read is ridiculous. I guess he picked fights and puked all over the place too in your mind. People do drink with in the limits - who was Jesus - what a man with no self control?Was he chasing the ladies too?

 

[oldbadger]

Such as his 12 disciples. They were each in some way undesireable. ............................. Peter was a fisherman and not a good man.

I've always said that! Whitstable is full of 'em, going out an' catching them poor fishes, n' stuff.

There was the wedding where he turned giant jugs of water into wine. I presume the wine was distributed in tiny plastic cups that couldn't get anyone drunk, but I might be wrong about it. :satire: Its possible that some people were drunk at the wedding, but Jewish weddings are not described in scripture. Perhaps celebrants only dip the tips of their fingers in the wine and suck it off, like in a ritual? A wedding is already joyous enough without getting drunk so why would they need to be drunk. Makes no sense. I'm sure Jesus would never get drunk at a wedding, because he was Jewish. :notserious:

I don't drink a lot of booze these days, but who wouldn't invite Jesus to a wedding?
And while he's about it maybe the feast could just appear?

 

[oldbadger]

I confess I don't understand why you are so keen to push the idea of Jesus getting drunk - unless you yourself get drunk a lot and it would make you feel better to think he did the same. The gospels are completely silent on this. All we know is that Jesus did, like just about all his compatriots, drink wine.

Oh yes..... I've been more than just inebriated, back in my 20's. Nature provided me with the most wonderful cure so that I would take care with alcohol........... alcohol poisoning, not forgotten in a lifetime.
Why do I push it? I asked a question, the thread title asked if the gospels reported........
The reason why I asked is because the gospels, once stripped of Christian fiddling, show me a man determined to struggle for social justice in a land where the peasant classes had none. And I mention peasants classes because there was really no middle class. He was a man, and he would have done things that people do......... raising him up to a god who created everything and couldn't even enjoy a drink does need shaking, I suppose.

But there is more general evidence from his teaching that he regarded self-control as important - as in fact do just about all religious teachers, in every religion.

Yes, Jesus wanted a controlled 'people' to rise up against the outrages committed by the Leadership, but he certainly enjoyed his food, wine and company...... that isn't 'out of control'.....
I remember that my Dad's generation and company thought that enjoying alcohol was socially important, a teetotaler was at a certain disadvantage. A colleague slightly sloshed was a great joke next day, but if a man was discovered to drink at home...... oh no! The hypocrisy was huge.
I always drank water in a small glass at company functions because I would drive home, but one evening my boss discovered....... he was actually angry!

 

[oldbadger]

Ok go for it, here are some verses about His sinlessness.
10 Bible verses about Jesus Christ, Sinlessness

Hello Elisha..... I'm having a little trouble with your verses. None of them mention enjoying food and wine with chosen friends..... and don't forget, Jesus and the Baptist, their disciples were offering redemption/cleansing through immersion for NOTHING...... clearly cutting off Temple Takings, and I expect the priesthood considered all that a grave sin.

Now let's look at your offerings:-

1 Peter 2:22 .....who committed no sin, nor was any deceit found in His mouth;
1 Peter 1:18-19 knowing that you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers, but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ

It looks as if Peter is talking about the greed, the mammon of riches. Peter probably enjoyed his wine as well, so why do you think that he would have had such things in mind?

It might be best if you would rage against those who have amassed fortunes of unreasonable wealth when a huge % of our peoples cannot afford a small home, Elisha...... 'Silver and Gold'

2 Corinthians 5:21 He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.
Hebrews 4:15 For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.

Ah! ....Paul! Interestingly, apart from mentions of Jesus in his last 36 hours Paul never ever made mention of anything that Jesus ever did, not one mention of any part of his mission. I don't think Paul was that interested in Jesus the man who stood up against Temple corruption at all.

Luke 1:35 The angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.

Ah yes...... Luke's story, now that's interesting because in that pre-nativity story Luke made the Baptist a cousin of Jesus, who in verses connected to this debate the Baptist clearly didn't know Jesus..... ;'Are you the one?'
No mention of having a drink anywhere....

1 John 3:5 You know that He appeared in order to take away sins; and in Him there is no sin.
Matthew 27:24 When Pilate saw that he was accomplishing nothing, but rather that a riot was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd, saying, “I am innocent of this Man’s blood; see to that yourselves.”
John 19:4 Pilate came out again and *said to them, “Behold, I am bringing Him out to you so that you may know that I find no guilt in Him.”
John 8:29 And He who sent Me is with Me; He has not left Me alone, for I always do the things that are pleasing to Him.”

Of course, the author/s of John's gospel, letters, revelations etc....they were not there, not the disciple, and Pilate wasn't debating the amount of wine that could be drunk ...... BY the way, Pilate did let a man go free, much loved by the people, who had rampaged (probably) through Temple and city causing a riot, who the people loved so much that they rose up for his freedom, a man called Jesus Son of the Father, but his first name was removed from early bibles and his last name was hidden in plain sight in Eastern Aramaic..... Jesus Barabbas. I'll bet that this Jesus ate and drank heartily with his friends. Have you ever thought of that?

Isaiah 53:9 His grave was assigned with wicked men, Yet He was with a rich man in His death, Because He had done no violence, Nor was there any deceit in His mouth.

Isaiah didn't know Jesus. He was just a prophet.

 

[oldbadger]

He was at a wedding and made more wine when it ran out I'm sure he had a few glasses Having a few glasses and feeling the wine is normal it was also a staple drink like milk is today even kids drank the wine. But claiming he was a stumbling inebriated drunk from whats read is ridiculous. I guess he picked fights and puked all over the place too in your mind. People do drink with in the limits - who was Jesus - what a man with no self control?Was he chasing the ladies too?

There was no mention of Jesus being an alcoholic......... he probably just ate and drank heartily with his friends, sometimes to excess. Certain members needed to take the thread title up to 'alcoholic' levels in order to refute it all.

After all, for Christians Jesus is the God that created the universe and all beyond, who came here to save humans! And that God certainly could not have a good drink with mates, even though he created the devil and sin. Amazing.

 

[exchemist]

Oh yes..... I've been more than just inebriated, back in my 20's. Nature provided me with the most wonderful cure so that I would take care with alcohol........... alcohol poisoning, not forgotten in a lifetime.
Why do I push it? I asked a question, the thread title asked if the gospels reported........
The reason why I asked is because the gospels, once stripped of Christian fiddling, show me a man determined to struggle for social justice in a land where the peasant classes had none. And I mention peasants classes because there was really no middle class. He was a man, and he would have done things that people do......... raising him up to a god who created everything and couldn't even enjoy a drink does need shaking, I suppose.


Yes, Jesus wanted a controlled 'people' to rise up against the outrages committed by the Leadership, but he certainly enjoyed his food, wine and company...... that isn't 'out of control'.....
I remember that my Dad's generation and company thought that enjoying alcohol was socially important, a teetotaler was at a certain disadvantage. A colleague slightly sloshed was a great joke next day, but if a man was discovered to drink at home...... oh no! The hypocrisy was huge.
I always drank water in a small glass at company functions because I would drive home, but one evening my boss discovered....... he was actually angry!

I very much agree with the sentiments about him being a man of the people, though he was a craftsman rather than a peasant. However I think it is slightly misreading the gospels to make him out to be a warrior for social justice. His emphasis was always on what the attitude of the individual should be towards the disadvantaged, rather than attempting to change the social structure. The message is about the way to individual salvation rather than effecting social change.

As far as eating and drinking, the only thing we are told in the gospels about his habits in this respect is that he was prepared to socialise with anyone and ate and drank like normal people, rather than being a holy ascetic of the John the Baptist type.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Hello Elisha..... I'm having a little trouble with your verses. None of them mention enjoying food and wine with chosen friends..... and don't forget, Jesus and the Baptist, their disciples were offering redemption/cleansing through immersion for NOTHING...... clearly cutting off Temple Takings, and I expect the priesthood considered all that a grave sin.

Now let's look at your offerings:-

It looks as if Peter is talking about the greed, the mammon of riches. Peter probably enjoyed his wine as well, so why do you think that he would have had such things in mind?

It might be best if you would rage against those who have amassed fortunes of unreasonable wealth when a huge % of our peoples cannot afford a small home, Elisha...... 'Silver and Gold'


Ah! ....Paul! Interestingly, apart from mentions of Jesus in his last 36 hours Paul never ever made mention of anything that Jesus ever did, not one mention of any part of his mission. I don't think Paul was that interested in Jesus the man who stood up against Temple corruption at all.


Ah yes...... Luke's story, now that's interesting because in that pre-nativity story Luke made the Baptist a cousin of Jesus, who in verses connected to this debate the Baptist clearly didn't know Jesus..... ;'Are you the one?'
No mention of having a drink anywhere....


Of course, the author/s of John's gospel, letters, revelations etc....they were not there, not the disciple, and Pilate wasn't debating the amount of wine that could be drunk ...... BY the way, Pilate did let a man go free, much loved by the people, who had rampaged (probably) through Temple and city causing a riot, who the people loved so much that they rose up for his freedom, a man called Jesus Son of the Father, but his first name was removed from early bibles and his last name was hidden in plain sight in Eastern Aramaic..... Jesus Barabbas. I'll bet that this Jesus ate and drank heartily with his friends. Have you ever thought of that?


Isaiah didn't know Jesus. He was just a prophet.

And all that to say…Jesus is and was sinless.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Of course, the author/s of John's gospel, letters, revelations etc....they were not there, not the disciple, and Pilate wasn't debating the amount of wine that could be drunk ...... BY the way, Pilate did let a man go free, much loved by the people, who had rampaged (probably) through Temple and city causing a riot, who the people loved so much that they rose up for his freedom, a man called Jesus Son of the Father, but his first name was removed from early bibles and his last name was hidden in plain sight in Eastern Aramaic..... Jesus Barabbas. I'll bet that this Jesus ate and drank heartily with his friends. Have you ever thought of that?

The appearance of Barabbas may not support your theory. The three gospels mentioning Barabbas are telling us that Barabbas way is not "The way" to go and that we must not fight physically our oppressors (the Romans). I think its an allusion to a particular sacrifice in Jewish law where one goat is killed with a knife and the other (called the 'Scapegoat') is set loose or tossed over a cliff or something. Point is, one is eaten and the other is not. One is good for food and one is not. There could be clues in Barabbas name. Bar means 'Son', and the writers are purposely not using a personal name as they do for everyone else and are instead calling him 'Son of Rabbas'. To me it seems Barabbas is put forward as one not to be consumed, not someone to emulate, so it it is a message to remain pacifist within the Roman empire. The topic may be confusing to the Jews living in the land of Israel, proper; because they have not been dragged away to a foreign country. Instead they are in their own country oppressed, so what is the right thing to do? The gospels say to go with peace.

I very much agree with the sentiments about him being a man of the people, though he was a craftsman rather than a peasant. However I think it is slightly misreading the gospels to make him out to be a warrior for social justice. His emphasis was always on what the attitude of the individual should be towards the disadvantaged, rather than attempting to change the social structure. The message is about the way to individual salvation rather than effecting social change.

As far as eating and drinking, the only thing we are told in the gospels about his habits in this respect is that he was prepared to socialise with anyone and ate and drank like normal people, rather than being a holy ascetic of the John the Baptist type.

Yes, Jesus is not the type to shout rise up and oppose the oppressors.

 

[oldbadger]

I very much agree with the sentiments about him being a man of the people, though he was a craftsman rather than a peasant.

There were several strata in the peasant classes. Something like quarantine, beggar, labourer, haulier, wood-stone-bone worker, metal worker, landholder/farmer...... there was no middle class. To rise up in to the ranks of the Levite orders or above one had to be either a brilliant merchant or successful brigand. Herod the Great had been a brigand!

However I think it is slightly misreading the gospels to make him out to be a warrior for social justice. His emphasis was always on what the attitude of the individual should be towards the disadvantaged, rather than attempting to change the social structure. The message is about the way to individual salvation rather than effecting social change.

I don't think so..... No. The Baptist, by offering cleansing, redemption and 'feel-good' for absolutely nothing (I expect his disciples did get gifts) folks could turn about and go home with their savings. Jesus (disciples) was doing the same thing. The Temple, bazaar and local-services takings must have slumped quite a lot....... Jesus was against the whole corrupt system, offering mercy and not sacrifice, and later demonstrating strongly in the Temple and picketing the Temple courts. Individual salvation? I think that was Paul's spin, myself.

As far as eating and drinking, the only thing we are told in the gospels about his habits in this respect is that he was prepared to socialise with anyone and ate and drank like normal people, rather than being a holy ascetic of the John the Baptist type.

I think that's why John got worried, hearing stories about Jesus ........
So called 'Normal' people didn't socialise with anyone back then and they don't now, imo
I'll never forget my late wife's mother's exasperation at some of our Bahai acquaintances (back then) .... she stamped her foot down, exclaiming well I don't think they're proper! I'll bet Jesus got plenty of that.

For what it's worth, from as much research as I have managed, I admire the Baptist and Jesus very much, but as people. Of course that must offend some Christians, but not those who visit and take our hospitality here.

 

[oldbadger]

And all that to say…Jesus is and was sinless.

Look. I acknowledge your belief and faith, OK?
But my researches must take me where they will......... I can only follow my own findings, Elisha.
And I personally don't think that enjoying too much wine or food comes close to the sin of Mammon. I don't think Jesus did either.

 

[oldbadger]

The appearance of Barabbas may not support your theory. The three gospels mentioning Barabbas are telling us that Barabbas way is not "The way" to go and that we must not fight physically our oppressors (the Romans). I think its an allusion to a particular sacrifice in Jewish law where one goat is killed with a knife and the other (called the 'Scapegoat') is set loose or tossed over a cliff or something. Point is, one is eaten and the other is not. One is good for food and one is not. There could be clues in Barabbas name. Bar means 'Son', and the writers are purposely not using a personal name as they do for everyone else and are instead calling him 'Son of Rabbas'. To me it seems Barabbas is put forward as one not to be consumed, not someone to emulate, so it it is a message to remain pacifist within the Roman empire. The topic may be confusing to the Jews living in the land of Israel, proper; because they have not been dragged away to a foreign country. Instead they are in their own country oppressed, so what is the right thing to do? The gospels say to go with peace.

Ummmm...... cannot agree.
Jesus Barabbas (Jesus son of the Father) was much loved by all the common people. He was a Norther Jew if he had a nickname like 'Bar' and not the Southern 'Ben' and he was on a mission. He caused upheaval and riot, probably in Temple and city and was convicted, but the people loved him so much that they stood up for him to the point that Pilate was worried enough to think of a reason to free him. I wonder if the people had welcomed him with palm leaves and blessings when he had arrived there? I wonder if he was the Jesus who went back out through Galilee afterwards, seen by so many?
Oh........ and I'll bet he liked to eat and drink with his mates.
Maybe Muhammad got it right, about Jesus? I'll never know, all too long ago now.

 

[Shadow11]

There was no mention of Jesus being an alcoholic......... he probably just ate and drank heartily with his friends, sometimes to excess. Certain members needed to take the thread title up to 'alcoholic' levels in order to refute it all.

After all, for Christians Jesus is the God that created the universe and all beyond, who came here to save humans! And that God certainly could not have a good drink with mates, even though he created the devil and sin. Amazing.

I was making fun of the thread - I find it absolutely hilarious that someone would interpret it as Jesus being a drunk but that's how it is now you can post anything and there will always be opposition to the point of insanity and all you can do is laugh. I could say the sky is blue and guaranteed there would be a few telling me its not.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Look. I acknowledge your belief and faith, OK?
But my researches must take me where they will......... I can only follow my own findings, Elisha.
And I personally don't think that enjoying too much wine or food comes close to the sin of Mammon. I don't think Jesus did either.

This is what you said and was answering because seems you forgot:
No, Elisha, I crossed no line. You would need to actually show the verse which tells that Jesus never sinned, and then I would show you verses which showed that he did.
So I gave you the Scriptures that Jesus Christ was and is without sin.

 

[oldbadger]

This is what you said and was answering because seems you forgot:
No, Elisha, I crossed no line. You would need to actually show the verse which tells that Jesus never sinned, and then I would show you verses which showed that he did.
So I gave you the Scriptures that Jesus Christ was and is without sin.

And I answered your post, showing that not one verse was pertinent.