HedwigesMaduro:


Not that I agree with the guy you replied to, but how does what Jesus said there sound like a parable?

To " wine and dine" is a figurative expression.

The word winebidder was only mentioned by Jesus in Luke 7:35 and Matthew 11: 19

The accusation was falsely brought against Jesus of being "a gluttonous man and a winebibber," because, unlike John, He ate and drank with others.

Take a look at "wine" and " bid" ( to utter) separately, does it refer to being an alcoholic?

bkool7:




To " wine and dine" is a figurative expression.

The word winebidder was only mentioned by Jesus in Luke 7:35 and Matthew 11: 19

The accusation was falsely brought against Jesus of being "a gluttonous man and a winebibber," because, unlike John, He ate and drank with others.

Take a look at "wine" and " bid" ( to utter) separately, does it refer to being an alcoholic?

.Thank you for this comment.

Minjim:


This is the last time I'm going to entertain you with reply because I can see through your motives.

I know to " wine and dine" doesn't mean to be a gluttony and a drunk.
Do you?

wine and dine? For pete's sake stop pretending it is your place to make God look good..

bkool7:




To " wine and dine" is a figurative expression.

The word winebidder was only mentioned by Jesus in Luke 7:35 and Matthew 11: 19

The accusation was falsely brought against Jesus of being "a gluttonous man and a winebibber," because, unlike John, He ate and drank with others.

Take a look at "wine" and " bid" ( to utter) separately, does it refer to being an alcoholic?

Did Jesus deny that He drank wine? And don't tell me it was grape juice he turned water to in Cana. Except if you've not read the reaction of the chairman of the occasion.

illicit:

The Jews criticised Jesus for wining and dining with sinner

Jesus turned water to wine

most religious people just like being dumb
Jesus drank!

Jesus himself described how He was accused of being a glutton and a drunk by the Pharisees

bkool7:

To " wine and dine" is a figurative expression.

The word winebidder was only mentioned by Jesus in Luke 7:35 and Matthew 11: 19

The accusation was falsely brought against Jesus of being "a gluttonous man and a winebibber," because, unlike John, He ate and drank with others.

Take a look at "wine" and " bid" ( to utter) separately, does it refer to being an alcoholic?

Jesus Christ who made the statement never said the accusation was false.

If you note, he mentioned a truth about John the Baptist and then followed it up with a truth about Himself

Kobojunkie:
wine and dine? For pete's sake stop pretending it is your place to make God look good..

This is not about making Jesus look good or bad. It's about the fact as stated in the Bible which obviously, you have grossly misinterpreted.
Just to be clear, my position is that Jesus never said he is a drunk. And yours ( without fact) is that he is a drunk. What he said was that the people perceived him as a drunk.
Perception is not reality.

Minjim:


This is not about making Jesus look good or bad. It's about the fact as stated in the Bible which obviously, you have grossly misinterpreted.
Just to be clear, my position is that Jesus never said he is a drunk. And yours ( without fact) is that he is a drunk. What he said was that the people perceived him as a drunk.
Perception is not reality.

it is all about you trying to make Jesus Christ look good despite the truth that He himself reveals to you. Jesus made the statement in question about How He came eating and drinking, unlike John the Baptist, yet He was labelled a glutton and a drunk.....

What Jesus Christ never told you there was that He did not in fact drink. Not did Jesus Christ tell us that that He did not drink a lot. But you have made it your place to try to clean up His image by pretending what He said was not literal and so should not be considered as He stated it.

Kobojunkie:
Jesus Christ who made the statement never said the accusation was false.

If you note, he mentioned a truth about John the Baptist and then followed it up with a truth about Himself

But he said it was accurate, right?

First, Jesus’ enemies were not interested in painting an accurate picture of Jesus. They merely wanted to discredit Him and rob Him of His influence.
As a result, He was called many things – a Samaritan (John 8:48), demon-possessed (John 7:20), and a sinner (John 9:24).
If we follow the same logic, does that mean Jesus had just a little bit of sin? Did He have a little bit of demon in Him? Was He at least part Samaritan?
If we can see the utter falsehood in these accusations, why do we assume that the fact they called Him a drunkard means He is?

bkool7:


But he said it was accurate, right?

First, Jesus’ enemies were not interested in painting an accurate picture of Jesus. They merely wanted to discredit Him and rob Him of His influence.
As a result, He was called many things – a Samaritan (John 8:48), demon-possessed (John 7:20), and a sinner (John 9:24).
If we follow the same logic, does that mean Jesus had just a little bit of sin? Did He have a little bit of demon in Him? Was He at least part Samaritan?
If we can see the utter falsehood in these accusations, why do we assume that the fact they called Him a drunkard means He is?

God bless you.


So if my enemies labelled me negatively that means I am what they labelled me?

Pretty funny

bkool7:


But he said it was accurate, right?

First, Jesus’ enemies were not interested in painting an accurate picture of Jesus. They merely wanted to discredit Him and rob Him of His influence.
As a result, He was called many things – a Samaritan (John 8:48), demon-possessed (John 7:20), and a sinner (John 9:24).
If we follow the same logic, does that mean Jesus had just a little bit of sin? Did He have a little bit of demon in Him? Was He at least part Samaritan?
If we can see the utter falsehood in these accusations, why do we assume that the fact they called Him a drunkard means He is?

This was a statement made by Jesus Christ Himself, as to what He was called. He mentioned John and what John was called and then He mentioned Himself as coming eating and drinking(He does not deny the drinking part at all), and how He was labelled a glutton and a drunk for doing more than what John was seen doing.

Now, Jesus Christ, there in His own words, in fact admits to eating and drinking.
Now as to the quantity of what He ate and drank, He definitely did not state that the claim was an exaggeration of sorts.
He did not deny the claim that He ate a lot, nor that He drank a lot. No, He, Jesus Christ, does not deny it in anyway.

Don't attempt to the create a denial on His behalf

Kobojunkie:


This was a statement made by Jesus Christ Himself, as to what He was called. He mentioned John and what John was called and then He mentioned Himself as coming eating and drinking(He does not deny the drinking part at all), and how He was labelled a glutton and a drunk for doing more than what John was seen doing.

Now, Jesus Christ, there in His own words, in fact admits to eating and drinking.
Now as to the quantity of what He ate and drank, He definitely did not state that the claim was an exaggeration of sorts.
He did not deny the claim that He ate a lot, nor that He drank a lot. No, He, Jesus Christ, does not deny it in anyway.

Don't attempt to the create a denial on His behalf

Where are you heading to with this exactly?

These are the same people that called Jesus many negative names.

when you fight on the front lines long enough, you get used to taking some beatings. You will be slandered, insulted, and falsely accused.
In the process, you learn that some false charges hurled at you are not worth defending.
When Jesus was a called a Samaritan in John 8:48, he neither confirmed or denied it. Is His silence affirmation that He was of Samaritan descent?
No, Jesus was keenly aware of the fact that those who knew Him needed no denial; and those who hated Him would accept no denial.

When Herod questioned Jesus as the chief priests and scribes accused Him, Jesus was silent (Luke 23:9). Why? Because there are some accusations not worth defending. So when Jesus said instead, “Wisdom is vindicated by her children,” it implies that His followers were well acquainted with his manner of life and would continue to be so through eternity.

Truly reply you is a waste of time because you have a narrative that you are apparently promoting. You're just looking for someone to drag into your cage of deceit.
You don't even have any depth knowledge of the Bible. I don't expect you to understand anything now .

bkool7:


Where are you heading to with this exactly?

These are the same people that called Jesus many negative names.

when you fight on the front lines long enough, you get used to taking some beatings. You will be slandered, insulted, and falsely accused.
In the process, you learn that some false charges hurled at you are not worth defending.
When Jesus was a called a Samaritan in John 8:48, he neither confirmed or denied it. Is His silence affirmation that He was of Samaritan descent?
No, Jesus was keenly aware of the fact that those who knew Him needed no denial; and those who hated Him would accept no denial.

When Herod questioned Jesus as the chief priests and scribes accused Him, Jesus was silent (Luke 23:9). Why? Because there are some accusations not worth defending. So when Jesus said instead, “Wisdom is vindicated by her children,” it implies that His followers were well acquainted with his manner of life and would continue to be so through eternity.

Truly reply you is a waste of time because you have a narrative that you are apparently promoting. You're just looking for someone to drag into your cage of deceit.
You don't even have any depth knowledge of the Bible. I don't expect you to understand anything now .

Thanks boss. These are what I intend to say. But the knowledge and right words just failed me .
Imagine him saying it's not my place to defend my religion when it's under attack like now.

Minjim:


Thanks boss. These are what I intend to say. But the knowledge and right words just failed me .
Imagine him saying it's not my place to defend my religion when it's under attack like now.

You did well.
We represent God on earth and need to do a good job defending ( not with violent or propaganda but by the Word) religion and ultimately God.
Endeavour to have firm grasp in your faith so that you are ready to defend when time comes.
If we take care of our religion, God will bless us more. We need to serve our religion, whatever it takes. As there is only one true religion and that is the love of God. — why should not I propagate/defend it?

bkool7:


Where are you heading to with this exactly?

These are the same people that called Jesus many negative names.

when you fight on the front lines long enough, you get used to taking some beatings. You will be slandered, insulted, and falsely accused.
In the process, you learn that some false charges hurled at you are not worth defending.
When Jesus was a called a Samaritan in John 8:48, he neither confirmed or denied it. Is His silence affirmation that He was of Samaritan descent?
No, Jesus was keenly aware of the fact that those who knew Him needed no denial; and those who hated Him would accept no denial.

When Herod questioned Jesus as the chief priests and scribes accused Him, Jesus was silent (Luke 23:9). Why? Because there are some accusations not worth defending. So when Jesus said instead, “Wisdom is vindicated by her children,” it implies that His followers were well acquainted with his manner of life and would continue to be so through eternity.

Truly reply you is a waste of time because you have a narrative that you are apparently promoting. You're just looking for someone to drag into your cage of deceit.
You don't even have any depth knowledge of the Bible. I don't expect you to understand anything now .

Again, this was Jesus Christ Himself, the truth of God expressing what was said of Him... As I have already warned the other from doing, do not think it your place to furnish a clean image for Jesus Christ based on your assumptions.

According to Jesus Christ, He came eating and drinking,meaning He did not shy away from food or from booze. There is no question of the truth of this because Jesus Christ Himself said that He did.

The question of quantity of drinking is however what we have here. According to Jesus Christ, He was labelled a glutton and a drunk from those who observed Him.

What Jesus does not do afterwards is deny the allegations neither does He tell anyone not to drink or eat as much as one desires.

Kobojunkie:
Intoxication is not a sin at all.

Intoxication is definitely a sin.



1 Corinthians 5:11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.


The holy spirit inspired Paul to say the above.

Terryishere:


Ok.

Intoxication is definitely a sin.



1 Corinthians 5:11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

nencounter10:



Intoxication is definitely a sin.



1 Corinthians 5:11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

Don't post this to me, post it to the person who said it wasn't a sin.

nencounter10:


Intoxication is definitely a sin

1 Corinthians 5:11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
The holy spirit inspired Paul to say the above.

The only one who can define what sin is is God Himself as His commandments and there are no commandments that suggest intoxication a sin.

Paul may have an opinion about it and may be a follower of Jesus Christ but Paul is not God and Paul does not have power to define sin.

Kobojunkie:
Not according to the Bible.

Even those who did not like Jesus Christ noted that He was a glutton and a drunk... And no, they were not lying that He liked His alcohol

Let's not try now to lie or put a spin on what is written as if it is our job to fight for God in even these things.

Jesus Christ was never drunk

Matthew 11:19 The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children. Luke 7:34 The Son of man is come eating and drinking; and ye say, Behold a gluttonous man, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners!


That he was called a glutton and a winebibber doesnt mean he was one.

The same people also once said he was demon possessed. Does that mean he was demon possessed?



Luke 11:15 But some of them said, He casteth out devils through Beelzebub the chief of the devils. 11:17 But he, knowing their thoughts, said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and a house divided against a house falleth. 11:18 If Satan also be divided against himself, how shall his kingdom stand? because ye say that I cast out devils through Beelzebub. 11:19 And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your sons cast them out? therefore shall they be your judges. 11:20 But if I with the finger of God cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom of God is come upon you.

Kobojunkie:
absurdity ke? Luke 7 vs 34

That Jesus ate and drank does not mean he was a glutton nor wine biber.

Kobojunkie:
absurdity ke? Luke 7 vs 34

Luke 7:34 The Son of man is come eating and drinking; and ye say, Behold a gluttonous man, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners!


That Jesus ate and drank does not mean he was a glutton nor wine biber.

nencounter10:

That Jesus ate and drank does not mean he was a glutton nor wine biber.

since the definition is subjective, how do you prove that He was or was not?

Since it is possible for one man to drink a jug of beer without getting drunk while another is able to take a sip and loose his balance, how do in fact know without seeing the situation for yourself?

Since it is in fact possible for one man to eat huge meals without gaining a since pound while another man may consume what a baby does and pack on loads of pounds, how do you tell which of the two is a glutton unless you see it for yourself?

So, if Jesus said He came eating and drinking, I believe He meant it

nencounter10:

Luke 7:34 The Son of man is come eating and drinking; and ye say, Behold a gluttonous man, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners!

That Jesus ate and drank does not mean he was a glutton nor wine biber.

did you see Him eating and drinking for you to tell?

nencounter10:

Jesus Christ was never drunk

Matthew 11:19 The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children. Luke 7:34 The Son of man is come eating and drinking; and ye say, Behold a gluttonous man, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners!


That he was called a glutton and a winebibber doesnt mean he was one.

The same people also once said he was demon possessed. Does that mean he was demon possessed?



Luke 11:15 But some of them said, He casteth out devils through Beelzebub the chief of the devils. 11:17 But he, knowing their thoughts, said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and a house divided against a house falleth. 11:18 If Satan also be divided against himself, how shall his kingdom stand? because ye say that I cast out devils through Beelzebub. 11:19 And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your sons cast them out? therefore shall they be your judges. 11:20 But if I with the finger of God cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom of God is come upon you.

He was never drunk? Now you are lying!

Minjim:


Lol!
You deliberately interpreted the Bible literally to foster your sinister motives.

I know people like you.

Jesus doesn't speak literally, He speaks in parables. As such, there is always a story behind His words

Jesus never spoke in parable hundred percent percent of the time. In the above case he was definitely not speaking in parable. It will be obvious to you if you read the scripture in context. The contrast he struck with John was a valid contrast. John lived on wild locust and honey.

Matthew 3:4 And the same John had his raiment of camel's hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins; and his meat was locusts and wild honey. Mark 1:6 And John was clothed with camel's hair, and with a girdle of a skin about his loins; and he did eat locusts and wild honey;





Luke 7:31 And the Lord said, Whereunto then shall I liken the men of this generation? and to what are they like?

7:32 They are like unto children sitting in the marketplace, and calling one to another, and saying, We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned to you, and ye have not wept.

7:33 For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine; and ye say, He hath a devil.

7:34 The Son of man is come eating and drinking; and ye say, Behold a gluttonous man, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners!

7:35 But wisdom is justified of all her children.

Kobojunkie:
The only one who can define what sin is is God Himself as His commandments and there are no commandments that suggest intoxication a sin.

Paul may have an opinion about it and may be a follower of Jesus Christ but Paul is not God and Paul does not have power to define sin.

So, the words of Paul are not the words of God. Why are they in the Bible? Bible says "holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the holy spirit."


2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.


Paul spoke those words under the inspiration or moving of the holy Spirit and so it is the word of God.

Kobojunkie:


He was never drunk? Now you are lying!

Show me a scripture that says he was drunk.

Kobojunkie:
did you see Him eating and drinking for you to tell?

Did you see him eating and drinking for you to tell he was drunk?

Kobojunkie:
since the definition is subjective, how do you prove that He was or was not?

Since it is possible for one man to drink a jug of beer without getting drunk while another is able to take a sip and loose his balance, how do in fact know without seeing the situation for yourself?

Since it is in fact possible for one man to eat huge meals without gaining a since pound while another man may consume what a baby does and pack on loads of pounds, how do you tell which of the two is a glutton unless you see it for yourself?

So, if Jesus said He came eating and drinking, I believe He meant it

Eating beyond one's fill is glutony.Drinking to the point of intoxication is drunkenness

What sort of Christian believes that the words of Paul are not the words of God.

So all those epistles of Paul, peter, James , Jude and John are not God's word?

Kobojunkie:
The only one who can define what sin is is God Himself as His commandments and there are no commandments that suggest intoxication a sin.

Paul may have an opinion about it and may be a follower of Jesus Christ but Paul is not God and Paul does not have power to define sin.

Hear Paul as he declare his words as the words of God.



1 Thessalonians 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.