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

[oldbadger]

That's what liars do.

The serpent claimed that Eve would become wise by gaining Knowledge of Good and Evil - which was the truth - but it lied when it said that she would not die.

It used the truth to perpetuate a lie.

You were correct when you claimed that the Lord Jesus Christ ate with publicans and sinners - the text says as much - but the text never claimed that He drank to excess - so you were using the truth to perpetuate a lie.

You were correct when you claimed that John the Baptist sent his disciples to the Lord to inquire of Him - the text says as much - but the text never claimed that he did so because he had heard rumors from some "nasty Priests" - so you were using the truth to perpetuate a lie.

As I said before - using the truth to perpetuate a lie is what all liars do.

I'm just not adding to the text. And what do you mean by "reverse"?

I don't care. What do you mean by "reversed"?

Good for you - but the New Testament does not support your conviction - so what is it based on?

The only thing the New Testament claims that John the Baptist heard about the Lord while he was in prison were His "works" or "Godly deeds" - which continued to astonish him.

The New Testament never claimed that the Lord Jesus Christ and John the Baptist ever knew or even met each other until the time of the Lord's baptism.

It only provided the one account of John moving in his mother's womb when Mary entered. That's hardly a meeting.

You can believe what you want - but unless you can provide evidence that the Lord Jesus Christ and John the Baptist spent time together and knew each other intimately while growing up - you have nothing.

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

And your lack of self-awareness and level of projection is staggering.

You are the only one making stuff up here.

I quoted from John 3 when John the Baptist told his disciples that "He must increase, but I must decrease."

You are free to believe what you want - but unless you have evidence - you have nothing.

I was the one who told you.

What are you talking about?

Yet - you claimed earlier that the Lord Jesus Christ and John the Baptist "knew each other as relatives".

You are all over the place - you don't even know what you believe.

So - you don't believe that the New Testament is factual - that explains a lot.

First off - it is not "my" dictionary - it is everyone's.

And lastly - winebibber literally means a "drunkard" or "alcoholic" - whose preferred beverage was wine.

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

I don't know what constitutes a "brilliant affair" - but I bet the Lord Jesus Christ was a fun guy to be around.

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

The New Testament confirms some of what they claimed - but not all.

I didn't choose what the New Testament records - so I didn't choose what to believe in regards to what the Pharisees said.

Then why can't you prove it?

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

And no one said that He didn't love eating meat or drinking wine with publicans and sinners.

You really wish I hadn't said what I did in my first comment - don't you?

Based on the fact that that same God often condemned the practice of drinking in excess in the Old Testament.

Again - your lack of self-awareness and level of projection is staggering.

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

Yes - grew up. The Lord Jesus Christ grew up far from the Temple.

However - once He began His ministry - He traveled to Jerusalem and the Temple many times.

And the New Testament clearly records the Lord telling His followers to go to the Temple and that the Apostles went to the Temple for years after the Lord's death and Resurrection.

I'm quoting from the text and sharing historical facts.

You keep claiming this - but have failed to provide actual examples.

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

No - I like the name I chose - I just don't like how you use it.

Stop.

This will be a first.

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

I accurately pointed out when you were lying, being ignorant or hypocritical - and I provided evidence to prove my claims.

You have often claimed that I don't know what I am talking about. That I haven't read the Gospels.

And you have yet to call out any lie on my part because I have not been lying - unlike you.

I will have no reason to point out your lies if you stop lying.

I will have no reason to point out your ignorance if you stop being ignorant.

I will have no reason to point out your hypocrisy if you stop being hypocritical.

Nope - I like it - I just don't like how you use it - it feels like abuse. Stop it.

My posts are squeaky clean - but I keep having to clean yours up for you - which seems to have upset you.

Stop giving me reason to clean up your posts.

Hah! You thinking that you are in a position of strength is funny.

Yet this maid spoke to Peter in Aramaic - did she not? Otherwise - how could he understand her and her him?

His speaking Aramaic was not what singled him out as a Galilean - because that was the commonly spoken language of Jerusalem as well- but his "speech" - which refers to a dialect or accent - was what sent him apart - not language.

And - interesting footnote - Peter's names of Simon (Hebrew), Peter (Greek) and Cephas (Aramaic) all prove that those three languages were common in that region.

And when they crucified the Lord the sign they placed above His head was written in Latin, Hebrew and GREEK! Why use those three languages?

Cephas is simply Peter - from the Greek petros - in Aramaic. Not really a "nick-name".

And the Lord using the Aramiac equivalent does not remove the centuries of Greek influence on both Judea and Rome - or somehow make the Septuagint no longer exist.

Just because the common spoken language was Aramaic does not mean that they could not also know Hebrew and Greek.

Now you are lacking in common sense.

TLDR

 

[oldbadger]

@Fallen Prophet
What a gifting you have, that’s some kind of response!

Meh......... that member ranted too much for me. I didn't read any of it.

 

[oldbadger]

I see Jesus as having been a man who did his best to raise up a campaign against disgusting greed, corruption and hypocrisy amongst the Priesthood and all Temple practices, long since fallen from any grace.

That's just what I believe. I've read the gospels and researched the background of the accounts as best I can, and that's how I see it. Personally I really have come to like what I perceive Jesus to have been, but for me he was a man on a mission.

And so I don't think that enjoying his food and wine with his choice of company was a bad thing....neither the company, the food nor the wine, and if he really enjoyed himself at table then 'good for him'.

If that is dreadfully offensive to those who think that Jesus was/is God, made the universe and all within, etc..... I'm sad about that. If you think that only bits of the 'bad company, food and drink (sometimes to excess)' claims are all true...then I sadly cannot agree with you.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

TLDR

It's sad - but expected.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

Meh......... that member ranted too much for me. I didn't read any of it.

To you - "ranted" means "owned you".

 

[oldbadger]

To you - "ranted" means "owned you".

-yawn-*snores*........

 

[ElishaElijah]

I see Jesus as having been a man who did his best to raise up a campaign against disgusting greed, corruption and hypocrisy amongst the Priesthood and all Temple practices, long since fallen from any grace.

That's just what I believe. I've read the gospels and researched the background of the accounts as best I can, and that's how I see it. Personally I really have come to like what I perceive Jesus to have been, but for me he was a man on a mission.

And so I don't think that enjoying his food and wine with his choice of company was a bad thing....neither the company, the food nor the wine, and if he really enjoyed himself at table then 'good for him'.

If that is dreadfully offensive to those who think that Jesus was/is God, made the universe and all within, etc..... I'm sad about that. If you think that only bits of the 'bad company, food and drink (sometimes to excess)' claims are all true...then I sadly cannot agree with you.

As many others pointed out, you say that you studied and read the Scriptures but when you say Jesus got inebriated and some how may have sinned because He ate with sinners like you and I, then you missed His whole reason for coming. I can recognize the Biblical description of Jesus but your description is made up from your own imagination.

Here are some reasons why Jesus Christ came:15 Reasons Why Jesus Came

So in order to be a spotless sacrifice He couldn’t have gotten drunk or been a glutton, He would’ve sinned and surely would’ve sinned in His speech. But He didn’t.
“For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps: “Who committed no sin, Nor was deceit found in His mouth”; who, when He was reviled, did not revile in return; when He suffered, He did not threaten, but committed Himself to Him who judges righteously; who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness—by whose stripes you were healed.”
‭‭I Peter‬ ‭2:21-24‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

I’m glad you see Jesus as One who could relate to us common folk though and wasn’t like the people today or back then who consider themselves as “the elite”. That is one of the great qualities that Jesus Christ has, He fellowships and considers the poor and downcast as His friends and lifts them up.

 

[oldbadger]

As many others pointed out, you say that you studied and read the Scriptures.......

Yep....... they're there for all to read, Elisha.

......but when you say Jesus got inebriated and some how may have sinned because He ate with sinners like you and I, then you missed His whole reason for coming.

I never said that Jesus sinned, Elisha...... I don't think that eating and drinking with your friends is sinful, not even if you do have a few....... that's all in your ideas maybe?

I can recognize the Biblical description of Jesus but your description is made up from your own imagination.

You can recognise it all but others (who see it differently) can't? I see.....

This is becoming so much more clear to me now.

Here are some reasons why Jesus Christ came:15 Reasons Why Jesus Came

So in order to be a spotless sacrifice He couldn’t have gotten drunk or been a glutton, He would’ve sinned and surely would’ve sinned in His speech. But He didn’t.
“For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps: “Who committed no sin, Nor was deceit found in His mouth”; who, when He was reviled, did not revile in return; when He suffered, He did not threaten, but committed Himself to Him who judges righteously; who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness—by whose stripes you were healed.”
‭‭I Peter‬ ‭2:21-24‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

Then cling to that, Elisha........ but I think Jesus was totally different from that.

I’m glad you see Jesus as One who could relate to us common folk though and wasn’t like the people today or back then who consider themselves as “the elite”. That is one of the great qualities that Jesus Christ has, He fellowships and considers the poor and downcast as His friends and lifts them up.

You're half right, imo.
Jesus did consider the working classes (there was no middle class) as of himself, and stood against the oppression and corruption of a fattened greedy careless hypocritical leadership.

It's all there for anybody to read, as long as they filter out the Christian additions and edits.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

I see Jesus as having been a man who did his best to raise up a campaign against disgusting greed, corruption and hypocrisy amongst the Priesthood and all Temple practices, long since fallen from any grace.

That's just what I believe. I've read the gospels and researched the background of the accounts as best I can, and that's how I see it. Personally I really have come to like what I perceive Jesus to have been, but for me he was a man on a mission.

And so I don't think that enjoying his food and wine with his choice of company was a bad thing....neither the company, the food nor the wine, and if he really enjoyed himself at table then 'good for him'.

If that is dreadfully offensive to those who think that Jesus was/is God, made the universe and all within, etc..... I'm sad about that. If you think that only bits of the 'bad company, food and drink (sometimes to excess)' claims are all true...then I sadly cannot agree with you.

No one is disagreeing with you about the Lord Jesus Christ being on a mission - and a part of that mission was to expose the greed, corruption and hypocrisy among the ruling class of the Jews.

Also - no one is disagreeing with you about the Lord Jesus Christ enjoying food and wine with His choice of company. Publicans and sinners included.

The reason that no one is disagreeing with you about these things is because all of them are supported by the New Testament. There is scriptural evidence that backs up these claims.

However - there is no scriptural evidence for the idea that the Lord Jesus Christ wanted to destroy either the Priesthood or Temple worship. On the contrary - there is evidence that he supports them.

Both the Priesthood and Temple worship were gifts that God gave to Israel. The fact that Israel began to abuse these gifts does not mean that the Priesthood or Temple worship had "fallen from grace" - but rather that Israel had.

There is also no scriptural evidence that the Lord Jesus Christ had ever become inebriated or that He was an alcoholic - there is actually a lot of scriptural evidence that condemns both of those things.

No one knows why you care so much if the Lord Jesus Christ was an alcoholic - but I assume that is is because you are trying to justify some destructive behavior on your part.

Every time you were asked to present evidence for your claims - you had no success - and your attempts displayed your lack of knowledge and understanding on the subject.

Every time your ignorance, hypocrisy and straight up lying were pointed out - you resorted to ad hominem attacks, doubling down on your baseless nonsense or just ignoring what you didn't want to see.

I think it is time to cut your losses - oldbadger.

 

[oldbadger]

No one is disagreeing with you about the Lord Jesus Christ being on a mission - and a part of that mission was to expose the greed, corruption and hypocrisy among the ruling class of the Jews.

Also - no one is disagreeing with you about the Lord Jesus Christ enjoying food and wine with His choice of company. Publicans and sinners included.

The reason that no one is disagreeing with you about these things is because all of them are supported by the New Testament. There is scriptural evidence that backs up these claims.

Indeed

However - there is no scriptural evidence for the idea that the Lord Jesus Christ wanted to destroy either the Priesthood or Temple worship. On the contrary - there is evidence that he supports them.

Rubbish.....you can't have read the gospels

There is also no scriptural evidence that the Lord Jesus Christ had ever become inebriated or that He was an alcoholic - there is actually a lot of scriptural evidence that condemns both of those things.

Inebriated.... there were claims.
Alcoholic.....you brought that term to the table.
There is no evidence that Jesus was either a Lord or Christ.

No one knows why you care so much if the Lord Jesus Christ was an alcoholic - but I assume that is is because you are trying to justify some destructive behavior on your part.

I have never called Jesus an alcoholic. You just make stuff up.
I'm getting to know you ....

Every time you were asked to present evidence for your claims - you had no success - and your attempts displayed your lack of knowledge and understanding on the subject.

Every time your ignorance, hypocrisy and straight up lying were pointed out - you resorted to ad hominem attacks, doubling down on your baseless nonsense or just ignoring what you didn't want to see.

Throwing your cheap insults around cannot help your case.
This is why I ignore most of your junk.

I think it is time to cut your losses - oldbadger.

I think it's time that you learned to read...... And understand..... What's in the gospels.
Please go away...... And take your cheap arguments with you.
....

 

[ElishaElijah]

But some Christians can be infuriated by the idea that their God might have got inebriated sometimes.

You said Jesus might have gotten inebriated which would mean He sinned.

 

[Shadow11]

Lol its what you want to see in it - it says no-where that he was smashed from drinking too much and the nasty people were just sinners nowhere does it say anything about them but that I believe some were tax collectors who everyone hated. It was actually criticism from the Pharisees who where looking for anything to smear him.

Its all in how you want to read it.

It really is not the interpretation the writer intended and you have to wonder how you got there I find it hilarious that someone would interpret it that way.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

Indeed

Word

Rubbish.....you can't have read the gospels

It would be very easy to prove that the Lord Jesus Christ wanted to destroy the Priesthood and the Temple.

All you supplied was Him accurately foretelling the destruction of the Temple by the Romans - not any desire or mission to destroy them.

And that wouldn't explain why He told His followers to go to the Temple and why the Apostles continued to go to the Temple for years after His death and Resurrection.

And also notice how you just claimed that I was ignorant - that I have not read the Gospels - all the while disparaging me for claiming that you are ignorant - claiming that it is an "insult".

That is how I expose your hypocrisy.

Inebriated.... there were claims.

No - the only "claim" was the Lord Jesus Christ referencing what His enemies had said about Him.

"For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil.

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." (Matthew 11:18-19)

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

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!" (Luke 7:33-34)

The enemies of the Lord Jesus Christ claimed that He was a "winebibber" - which is an alcoholic or drunkard that preferred wine - because He was friends with publicans and sinners and enjoyed eating and drinking with them.

Being a winebibber (or alcoholic or drunkard that prefers wine) and being gluttonous were things that God often commanded against.

He even commanded against associating with such,

"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)

Why do you choose to believe the enemies of the Lord Jesus Christ?

Take notice that in the same discourse where He quoted His enemies claiming that He was a winebibber - which is an alcoholic or drunkard that prefers wine - He also quoted them saying that John the Baptist "hath a devil" (Matthew 11:18, Luke 7:33).

Do you also believe that John the Baptist had been possessed by "a devil"?

If not - why do you believe the enemies of the Lord Jesus Christ only some of the time - and not all of the time?

Remember - these same enemies also claimed that the Lord Jesus Christ "casteth out devils through the prince of the devils" or "by Beelzebub the prince of the devils" (Matthew 9:34, 12:28, Mark 3:22, Luke 11:15)

They also claimed that He was a Samaritan and that He "hast a devil" and that He was "mad" (i.e. insane) (John 8:48, 10:20)

So - aren't you the one "picking and choosing" from what the New Testament records?

Unless - of course - you agree with the enemies of the Lord Jesus Christ - that both He and John the Baptist had been possessed by devils and were therefore performing their works by the power of the prince of the devils - and were both mad men.

I mean - "there were claims" - right?

You claimed that I was the one "cherry-picking" from the scriptures - but here we are - me yet again exposing your hypocrisy.

Alcoholic.....you brought that term to the table.

You were the one who originally quoted the above mentioned reference to "winebibber".

All I did was correct you on what that term meant - it means an alcoholic or drunkard that perfers wine.

There is no evidence that Jesus was either a Lord or Christ.

Irrelevant.

Your argument from the OP was that the New Testament supported the idea that the Lord Jesus Christ was a "winebibber" - an alcoholic or drunkard that prefers wine - it does not.

I have never called Jesus an alcoholic. You just make stuff up.

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.

True - you made this claim before you knew the correct definition of winebibber - but you have maintained your position even after I accurately pointed out that winebibber means an alcoholic or drunkard that prefers wine.

Therefore - you have repeatedly called the Lord Jesus Christ an alcoholic - and you used the words of His enemies to do so.

Do you also believe that He was a Samaritan and that He had been possessed by the prince of the devils and was therefore a "mad man"?

I mean - "there were claims" - right?

Throwing your cheap insults around cannot help your case.

You claimed that I was ignorant many times - despite your assertion that you didn't insult people.

Now you claim that my pointing out your ignorance, lies and hypocrisy are insults.

That's not how insults work - but that is how hypocrisy works. You are being hypocritical.

This is why I ignore most of your junk.

You ignore what I say because you don't like it when the truth challenges your views.

I think it's time that you learned to read...... And understand..... What's in the gospels.

You just claimed that I was ignorant again - even though I have been quoting from the Old and New Testaments to prove all my points and disprove yours.

Please go away...... And take your cheap arguments with you.

I understand that you believe that the New Testament is just a "cheap argument" - but I don't.

And even if it was - you cannot claim the New Testament claims things that it never did.

Stop making stuff up.

 

[oldbadger]

hypocrisy.

Oh No! Not you again!
The member who hates the name that he gave himself.
It might be better to call you 'No Name', maybe?

The enemies of the Lord Jesus Christ claimed that He was a "winebibber" - which is an alcoholic or drunkard that preferred wine - because He was friends with publicans and sinners and enjoyed eating and drinking with them.

So you turn 'winebibber' in to drunkard? I think you turn anything and everything to suit yourself.
And yet you admit that the enemeies of Jesus told the truth about who he ate and drank with.
You cherry pick your truths, your words, your verses....... to suit what I believe to be your mumbo-jumbo, Fallen Prophet.

Why do you choose to believe the enemies of the Lord Jesus Christ?

I believe the truth about Yeshua BarYosef........ not your cherry picked stuff.

If not - why do you believe the enemies of the Lord Jesus Christ only some of the time - and not all of the time?

Because I'm not totally indoctrinated in to believing that everything enemies said is wrong, or untrue. I'm not that bigoted.
Celcus is said (by Origen) to have made very helpful claims about Jesus and his close followers, but I don't expect you could accept that........ prejudiced, much?

[/QUOTE]So - aren't you the one "picking and choosing" from what the New Testament records?[/QUOTE]
No....that would be you.

Unless - of course - you agree with the enemies of the Lord Jesus Christ - that both He and John the Baptist had been possessed by devils and were therefore performing their works by the power of the prince of the devils - and were both mad men.

I don't believe in mumbo jumbo like 'the prince of the devils'........ that's really weird, imo.

You claimed that I was the one "cherry-picking" from the scriptures - but here we are - me yet again exposing your hypocrisy.

YOu cherry-pick everything, I( think.

Your argument from the OP was that the New Testament supported the idea that the Lord Jesus Christ was a "winebibber" - an alcoholic or drunkard that prefers wine - it does not.

Let's correct that rubbish of yours....... Jesus was not a Lord, nor a Christ, and being a winebibber doesn't make a person a drunk. YOu spin your trash to win your arguments, Fallen Prophet. And, Hey!.......change your name to something we can call you.

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.

I claimed that these were CLAIMS!

The Thread Title reads:-
Do the gospels report that Jesus liked his food and wine with nasty people, sometimes to excess?

I mean - "there were claims" - right?

At last......... you see some sense.
There were claims...... and you have admitted that some were true.

You claimed that I was ignorant many times - despite your assertion that you didn't insult people.Now you claim that my pointing out your ignorance, lies and hypocrisy are insults.
That's not how insults work - but that is how hypocrisy works. You are being hypocritical.

I expect that you throw insults all the time, and then scream 'foul' when you get them back.

I understand that you believe that the New Testament is just a "cheap argument" - but I don't.

Strip the Gospels of Christian fiddlings, edits, additions and junk and you have the real story.

 

[oldbadger]

You said Jesus might have gotten inebriated which would mean He sinned.

Ha ha! No it doesn't, Elisha.

Enjoying wine is not a sin!
I don't think you understand what sin really was, as written in the Old Testament laws. Any thing that reduced the strength, cohesion, health, size, security of the Israelite people was sin.
You've just collected a very few of those laws which you seem to cling to whilst ignoring hundreds of others, is my guess. Am I right?

 

[oldbadger]

Lol its what you want to see in it - it says no-where that he was smashed from drinking too much and the nasty people were just sinners nowhere does it say anything about them but that I believe some were tax collectors who everyone hated. It was actually criticism from the Pharisees who where looking for anything to smear him.

Its all in how you want to read it.

It really is not the interpretation the writer intended and you have to wonder how you got there I find it hilarious that someone would interpret it that way.

Well, I just think that Jesus was a human being, the idea that he was/is god who made billions of galaxies, trillions of star system and then came here to save human beings is what is hilarious, Shadow.

So if he liked his meat and wine, and the company he chose, I like him all the more for that.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Enjoying wine is not a sin!

Brother enjoying wine isn’t a sin of course but when you said Jesus got inebriated, means he got drunk and drunkenness is a sin. So are your right? No


in·e·bri·ate
(ĭn-ē′brē-āt′)
tr.v. in·e·bri·at·ed, in·e·bri·at·ing, in·e·bri·ates
1. To make drunk; intoxicate.
2. To exhilarate or stupefy.
adj. (-ĭt)
Intoxicated.
n. (-ĭt)
An intoxicated person.

 

[oldbadger]

Brother enjoying wine isn’t a sin of course but when you said Jesus got inebriated, means he got drunk and drunkenness is a sin. So are your right? No


in·e·bri·ate
(ĭn-ē′brē-āt′)
tr.v. in·e·bri·at·ed, in·e·bri·at·ing, in·e·bri·ates
1. To make drunk; intoxicate.
2. To exhilarate or stupefy.
adj. (-ĭt)
Intoxicated.
n. (-ĭt)
An intoxicated person.

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....

 

[ElishaElijah]

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....

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.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

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?

Oh No! Not you again!
The member who hates the name that he gave himself.
It might be better to call you 'No Name', maybe?

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?

So you turn 'winebibber' in to drunkard?

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.

I think you turn anything and everything to suit yourself.

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

And yet you admit that the enemeies of Jesus told the truth about who he ate and drank with.

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).

You cherry pick your truths, your words, your verses....... to suit what I believe to be your mumbo-jumbo, Fallen Prophet.

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.

I believe the truth about Yeshua BarYosef........ not your cherry picked stuff.

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.

Because I'm not totally indoctrinated in to believing that everything enemies said is wrong, or untrue. I'm not that bigoted.

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.

Celcus is said (by Origen) to have made very helpful claims about Jesus and his close followers, but I don't expect you could accept that........ prejudiced, much?

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?

No....that would be you.

LMAO

I don't believe in mumbo jumbo like 'the prince of the devils'........ that's really weird, imo.

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 cherry-pick everything, I( think.

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.

Let's correct that rubbish of yours....... Jesus was not a Lord, nor a Christ, and being a winebibber doesn't make a person a drunk.

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 spin your trash to win your arguments, Fallen Prophet. And, Hey!.......change your name to something we can call you.

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.

I claimed that these were CLAIMS!

The Thread Title reads:-
Do the gospels report that Jesus liked his food and wine with nasty people, sometimes to excess?

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.

At last......... you see some sense.

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?

There were claims...... and you have admitted that some were true.

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.

I expect that you throw insults all the time, and then scream 'foul' when you get them back.

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.

Strip the Gospels of Christian fiddlings, edits, additions and junk and you have the real story.

Evidence?

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