Drunk in the Spirit

[votivesoul]

Note, how, in Acts 2:14, Simon Peter quickly addresses the mockers who accused the disciples, and called them "men of Judea". These were fellow Jews who did not live abroad in the Roman Empire. Only those who heard the heterais glossais were amazed, for the disciples spoke in their, that is, the ex-pats, native tongue. But for the Jews from Judea, who were present, hearing these unlearned, backwater Galilean disciples speak new languages for the first time, languages that neither they or the disciples knew, would have sounded like childish nonsense.

Ever hear a child speak in "tongues", though not the tongues as the Spirit gives utterance, but the babbling fake languages some kids are wont to make up in their head? It sounds silly, and immature, and to hear an adult do something that seems like that, would indeed incite an accusation and a mockery.

The fact is, by the time of Pentecost, the harvest for grapes either being recently completed, or perhaps not even begun, depending on when Pentecost fell (and how good the year was), no wine would have been sufficiently alcoholic by that point to make a person drunk. Therefore, the accusation must have meant something else.

[Esaias]

1. All the commentaries, etc are wrong, and you are right with this rather novel interpretation? And they are wrong because they are guilty of eisogesis????

2. God supernaturally endows a gift of speaking a language but can't give a gift of fluency?

3. David acted "like one of the base fellows" in worship, and said he would do worse, even.

4. Jews thought people would get drunk on Welch's?

5. Nobody had alcoholic wine for Pentecost? Even though 51 days earlier they drank plenty of it for Passover?

6. Xenolalia disproved from the text itself (see earlier posts on the thread).

7. So they weren't acting drunk and disorderly, they were acting very orderly and soberly by acting like kids on a sugar high?

pfft.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Esaias

1. All the commentaries, etc are wrong, and you are right with this rather novel interpretation? And they are wrong because they are guilty of eisogesis????

The Greek word means what it means: unfermented grape juice. And besides, not all commentators, etc. see it the same way. Take Gill, for example.

2. God supernaturally endows a gift of speaking a language but can't give a gift of fluency?

Surely you witnessed some people speak in tongues for the first time? It often comes to them in stammering, disjointed sounding speech. Am I wrong, or the only one to have noticed this?

3. David acted "like one of the base fellows" in worship, and said he would do worse, even.

David's behavior was not the same as someone with half a bottle of JD in them. It was of a different sort. And besides, what was said of David was an accusation from an embittered source (i.e. Michal), because David took her back as a wife but wouldn't visit her, as it were.

4. Jews thought people would get drunk on Welch's?

The accusation in Acts 2:13, in Greek, simply means "to be full of", not intoxicated.

5. Nobody had alcoholic wine for Pentecost? Even though 51 days earlier they drank plenty of it for Passover?

The seasons and times of harvesting in ancient Israel were what they were. Grapes weren't harvested until summer, and sometimes, in late spring. Who said the wine at Passover was alcoholic, anyways?

6. Xenolalia disproved from the text itself (see earlier posts on the thread).

You're right. I meant heterais glossais. Amended above in post #84.

7. So they weren't acting drunk and disorderly, they were acting very orderly and soberly by acting like kids on a sugar high?

You've misread me. The speaking in tongues seemed like the speaking of a child trying to speak a second language. There is nothing in the text that speaks of the disciples being disorderly, out of control, or at a loss of their mental or physical faculties.

People see whatever they want in the Bible to justify whatever it is they think they need.

pfft.

Nice way to end a rejoinder. Not.

[deacon blues]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

People see whatever they want in the Bible to justify whatever it is they think they need.

THIS is what I believe to be the main source of error here. It's not forming a doctrine based on Scripture and putting it into practice. It's scrambling to find a couple of passages to text proof what people already believe based on personal experience or eye witnessing activity and wanting to validate it.

[deacon blues]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Note, how, in Acts 2:14, Simon Peter quickly addresses the mockers who accused the disciples, and called them "men of Judea". These were fellow Jews who did not live abroad in the Roman Empire. Only those who heard the heterais glossais were amazed, for the disciples spoke in their, that is, the ex-pats, native tongue. But for the Jews from Judea, who were present, hearing these unlearned, backwater Galilean disciples speak new languages for the first time, languages that neither they or the disciples knew, would have sounded like childish nonsense.

Ever hear a child speak in "tongues", though not the tongues as the Spirit gives utterance, but the babbling fake languages some kids are wont to make up in their head? It sounds silly, and immature, and to hear an adult do something that seems like that, would indeed incite an accusation and a mockery.

The fact is, by the time of Pentecost, the harvest for grapes either being recently completed, or perhaps not even begun, depending on when Pentecost fell (and how good the year was), no wine would have been sufficiently alcoholic by that point to make a person drunk. Therefore, the accusation must have meant something else.

More excellent points!