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!

[good samaritan]

The sin in these things is in the excess and the problems thereby caused. fornication is excess in intimacy. Intimacy is designed for one man and women in marriage not multiple partners outside of a covenant relationship. Drunkeness is the excess of wine and causes problems because it takes away the voice of reason.

Being excessive spiritually is not wrong. The problem is that people want to be moderate in the spiritual things and excessive in the carnal things. Being drunk on alcohol causes us to lose reason, but being drunk on the Spirit causes us to gain reason (the voice of God).

I disagree with you concerning tongues. I do count all Christian faiths as believers, but I am doubtful of their salvation. I am not anyone's judge, but I am certain of what the scripture teaches concerning Holy Ghost baptism. Religion void of God's Spirit is form with no power. Many trinity churches believe that the Spirit baptism occurs at believing and it seems that is the category you fall into. The believers gathered in the upper room for the Spirit baptism. Why the supernatural occurrence if they already had the Holy Ghost when they believed long before the day of Pentecost.

[deacon blues]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

The sin in these things is in the excess and the problems thereby caused. fornication is excess in intimacy. Intimacy is designed for one man and women in marriage not multiple partners outside of a covenant relationship. Drunkeness is the excess of wine and causes problems because it takes away the voice of reason.

Being excessive spiritually is not wrong. The problem is that people want to be moderate in the spiritual things and excessive in the carnal things. Being drunk on alcohol causes us to lose reason, but being drunk on the Spirit causes us to gain reason (the voice of God).

I disagree with you concerning tongues. I do count all Christian faiths as believers, but I am doubtful of their salvation. I am not anyone's judge, but I am certain of what the scripture teaches concerning Holy Ghost baptism. Religion void of God's Spirit is form with no power. Many trinity churches believe that the Spirit baptism occurs at believing and it seems that is the category you fall into. The believers gathered in the upper room for the Spirit baptism. Why the supernatural occurrence if they already had the Holy Ghost when they believed long before the day of Pentecost.

There's a difference between "born of the Spirit" and "baptized in the Spirit". The disciples had the Spirit before Pentecost (John 20:22). They were to tarry in Jerusalem for "power from on High". The language for born of the Spirit is "in you. Language for baptism of the Spirit in "upon you". John 1:12 "to all received him, to those who believed in His name, He gave the right to become children of God." You are born of God, born of the Spirit at faith. You are baptized in the Spirit subsequent to being born again.

Jesus was born of the Spirit in Mary's womb. The Spirit was resident in Him from conception. Yet we see no manifestations of power and miracles until He is water baptized and the Spirit "came upon as a dove". Immediately He is led of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil and when He returns the miracles start happening. Spiritual birth takes place at salvation, that is faith. Spiritual power takes place at Spirit baptism.

[good samaritan]

If spiritual birth takes place at salvation then we aren't born of the Spirit until we enter eternity and hear him say well done. Essentially salvation is a future event. I hear people say all the time I've got saved and I know what they mean. We truly aren't saved until we go on to our reward. A person can truly believe on God and also truly backslide.

So the Spirit baptism is not necessary for salvation?

[good samaritan]

1 Cor. 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit

I supposed that since Spirit birth and Spirit baptism are 2 different events then those that are Spirit born are not part of the body?

[deacon blues]

Also---"dryer" is an appliance. "Drier" is something that is lacking moisture. "Lose" rhymes with "ooze" and "loose" rhymes with "goose".

As Rush Limbaugh says in his ad for Verbal Advantage "People do judge you by the words you use."