Kjvo And Original Languages

[Genevanpreacher]

They also accused Him in those passages of being gluttonous.

Do you think He was that also?

 

I don't think of him being a drunkard nor a glutton. But just because he drank a liquid and ate some food doesn't mean he sinned.

It was just their 'eye-view'.

Skewed as it was, it was still an accusation according to visual proof. 

Jesus drank wine and ate food. The word of God says that.

Even if it was 'alcohol', it was drank for thirst or for 'food', not to inebriate him.

I am not saying it was alcoholic drink, I am just asking this - so what? He is God in the flesh. He wasn't going to drink enough to get drunk.

The 'witnesses-twisting-facts' occurs when they take facts and change the facts to 'hurt' the truth.

The scriptures say Jesus drank wine, he did. Alcoholic or not, it is not important to the proof of 

whether Jesus 'got drunk' or 'way-over-ate'. Jesus would never abuse his body.

That should be the focus, not whether a Greek word meant 'new wine' or 'wine' (alcoholic).

[Genevanpreacher]

Being that a few (or thousands) use the word 'new wine' for grape juice or weakened wine (non-alcoholic), my mind was a thinkin' again...

 

Why the verses in Acts say, in 2:13, when people were mocking and saying that the one's the apostles were speaking

in their own languages to, were full of new wine, yet Peter in the following verses says that they weren't drunk as they had supposed.

 

Seems new wine was thought to make one drunk here?

[John81]

Not directly addressing the question posed, and not having direct experience myself, but I have had friends in the past who used to make their own and while the new, or fresh, variety wasn't nearly as tasty or potent as that which had aged more, they could and did get drunk from it, only that they had to drink a goodly amount more for such to happen.

[MountainChristian]

They let it sour naturally. eeewwww