glutton drunkard messiah?
But I am puzzled with the reputation that Jesus had among people around him during his time as depicted in the Gospel.
For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine, and you say, ‘He has a demon.’ The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.’ (Luke 7:33-34 NIV)
Here it seems that Jesus is being compared to John the Baptist by the people of his time in that John were mindful on his diet, he ate no carbo and drank no wine while Jesus on the other hand ate and drank wine pretty much excessively, in the level of being a glutton and drunkard.
I am shocked, even if it was a hyperbolical words it reflect the “eating and drinking” habit of Jesus in contrast to John the Baptist as seen by the people during his ministry. While John the Baptist was depicted as a more mindful and modest man, in contrast, Jesus was seen somewhat party goer and social drinker.
I find it hard to believe this really the course of lifestyle Jesus opted to take, because prophets of God must certainly practised moderation or even abstinent lifestyle as their primary goal was spiritual not material.
God in the Qur’an also stresses the importance of refraining from eating food excessively:
وَڪُلُواْ وَٱشۡرَبُواْ وَلَا تُسۡرِفُوٓاْۚ
Eat and drink, but not to excess
(Q 7:31)
Categories: Christianity
Blogging Theology 
Luke 1:15 NIV (about John /Yahya)
“for he will be great in the sight of the Lord. He is never to take wine or other fermented drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even before he is born.”
This fits with what we imagine of a Prophet as it’s akin to Muhammad’s character. To try to see Jesus as being different from his brother Prophets feels uneasy. The verse (Luke 7:33-34 ) therefore starts to become dubious,as does also the ‘Miracle at Cana'(John 2:1-11). At Cana the wine ran out, meaning people were probably ‘merry’ (in the alcoholic sense), and in comes Jesus to save the day by bringing even more wine to perhaps bring people to drunkenness? Can you Imagine Mary at such a gathering? It seems doubtful. These verses, if interpreted as they are, are of those that seem not fit with Prophetic tradition and are therefore, for me, not reliable.
I have already viewed Christian Pastors on Youtube who show very convincing evidence that the ‘wine’ at Cana and elsewhere, was unfermented grape juice. That seems reasonable and therefore acceptable.
PS. Although your intention is sound, displaying the caricature of a fat Jesus on the cross, is crossing a line and is not becoming of a muslim. We have limits. IMHO.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good post Eric
LikeLike
http://www.studylight.org/lexicons/hebrew/hwview.cgi?n=8492…….. the ‘wine’ could certainly be simply juice or ‘must’ (non-alcoholic). Many argue that the ‘wine’ in Greek is οἶνος (oy’‑nos) and that means alcoholic wine. But Strong’s #8492 shows οἶνος (oy’‑nos) can be ‘must’.
LikeLike
Thank you for your comment
Indeed , you mention the feast at Cana, there we have in John 2:10
“Everyone serves the good wine first, and when people have had too much to drink methysthōsin μεθυσθῶσιν, then the poor wine, but [Jesus has] kept the good wine until now! ”
This is even more amazing to know that Jesus gave wine to drunk people. I do not understand how christians can deny that text which seemed to read Jesus gave more wine to people who were already drunk. It does seems no coincidence people called him a glutton and a drunkard in Luke.
Regarding the picture, I will take this advice.
LikeLiked by 2 people
why would the word Drunkard be used if it was not describing an alcoholic substance?
I do not find it surprising that Luke is another addition or an attempt to insult Jesus. Why should anyone else find it surprising either with the common knowledge that the bible has many erroneous verses and incorrect claims?
I look forward to Sham Shamoron saying that its a parable. We should have a competition to see who can come up with the funniest parable in this scenario. Let me kick it off:
“Its a parable (the wine part) describing that Jesus was drunk of the love of the father and the excess in food was a symbol of the bounty of the Lord which he has blessed us with”
LikeLiked by 1 person
As a fellow Muslim you should not post such a denigrating image of one of the anbiya.
Second in the statement:
“and you say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.’ ”
Who is “you”?
The people?
The people denigrating the Prophets is par for the course. It is to be expected. That does not mean it’s true.
You said:
“Here it seems that Jesus is being compared to John the Baptist by the people of his time in that John were mindful on his diet”
But that is clearly not happening.
“For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine, and you say, ‘He has a demon.’ The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.”
Yahya did not eat or drink wine and was quite ascetic. The people said about this “he has a demon”. He is being denigrated, not praised for his sparse diet.
The Isa eats bread and drinks instead of doing as Yahya did, and he is also denigrated, this time as a glutton.
It is obviously highlighting the hypocrisy of these people who denigrate the anbiya not matter what they do.
What a disappointing post.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“he has a demon” means they are accusing him of being possessed or bewitched by a demon.
Also “The Isa eats” should be “Then Isa eats” in my post. “not matter” should be “no matter:.
LikeLike
Get off your high horse before commenting on the great post br Eric has written. This place is for highly intellectual students who examine the Bible and leave others to comment.
I don’t think this is place is for people like you who want to dictate like a dictator what authors have to post on here.
There is nothing wrong what br Eric posted, he is only showing what the Bible states about him if you have issue with the verse go take it up with the author(s) who wrote the verse.
What a disappointing “visitor”
😉
LikeLike
Salam Visitor,
Thank you for your comment.
Please do not get me wrong, as I explained I meant no insult to Nabi Isa Alaihissalam , at all. As a muslim I assume you do not take present days Greek New Testament the inerrant word of God, do you?, Nabi Isa did not even speak greek, any reputable historian will tell us. Bear that in mind, we should not to believe that the NT told 100% accurate stories of our Nabi Isa Alaihissalam., the historical Jesus. EVEN the standard position of the majority New Testament scholars is that gospel writers practised some sort of forgery to the text, namely deliberately changed the text, compressing stories, displacing them from their original context and transplanting them in others, transferring words spoken by one person and representing them as spoken by others.
The purpose of this post mainly is to highlight one of problematic NT text to the readers muslim and non muslim alike and hopefully bring about some input from different angles for us to learn together. NEvertheless I do appreciate your advice as fellow muslim and will certainly take it into consideration.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Discover The Truth
I did not “dictate” anything to anyone. I simply requested him to remove the image by saying he should not post such images.
You say “get off your high horse” whilst at the same time saying “this is a place for highly intellectual students” followed by “I don’t think this is a place for people like you..”.
There is just a little bit of irony in that. Especially as the verse was totally misconstrued.
——————————————————–
@Eric bin Kisam
First, I appreciate you having manners and responding maturely unlike the other commenter, @Discover the Truth.
“The purpose of this post mainly is to highlight one of problematic NT text to the readers muslim and non muslim alike and hopefully bring about some input from different angles for us to learn together.”
I do not consider the NT or OT infallible. Far from it.
However I don’t see why this verse is problematic even from the perspective of Muslims.
The verse says Yahya did not eat or drink much (not any bread at all), and the people responded to this by saying he was possessed by a demon (indicating they felt this was strange and absurd behaviour).
>For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine, and you say, ‘He has a demon.’
So when Yahya eats and drinks little the people attacked him.
Then Isa appears and unlike Yahya he eats and drinks normally. This time they make up a new slander for Isa.
>The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard,
The verse demonstrates that if Isa was “mindful” and with a minimal diet, he would be slandered with the same slander they gave Yahya. He came eating and drinking, and they still slandered him anyways.
The verse is not stating Isa is a drunkard or glutton.
The verse is not stating Yahya is bewitched.
The verse is saying the people ***accused** Isa of drunkenness.
The verse is saying the people ***accused*** Yahya of being bewitched by a jinn/demon.
The verse is exposing the people as being hypocritical. No matter what Isa ate they would have slandered him for it.
Him drinking a little alcohol (without drunkenness) even if true is not a major issue as it was not haram in the previous religions. Nor was it haram in Islam until Allah revealed the relevant ayah. Before the prohibition on alcohol was revealed there were Muslims drinking alcohol. It was only after Allah prohibited it that it became haram in Islam.
In quran we have many examples of “the people” slandering the prophets, example is following Ayah:
“O you who have believed, be not like those who abused Moses; then Allah cleared him of what they said. And he, in the sight of Allah , was distinguished.”
33:69
If we look at the mufassireen, such as Imam Razi, Imam Nasafi, ect we will see them discuss the stories of how Musa was accused of killing Harun, or he was accused of adultery ect.
These stories, like the one in this verse, are the people making *accusations*. But neither the verse from luke or these stories say the accusation against the Prophet was actually true! On the contrary, the say or imply the opposite.
An example of an actually problematic part of the Bible text is the story of Dawud. In the Bible narrative, Dawud actually commits adultery. He is not accused in the bible, the bible says he actually did do it and God sent Nathan to confront him for it. This is an example were it is indeed a major problem and no Muslim can hold such a belief about Dawud.
Salam
LikeLike
@visitor
Thank you for your take on this issue.
My problem with the passage is actually not because if Jesus was actually wrongly accused by the people they gave da’wah: ie. the jewish establishment in Palestine but the accusation itself suggested Jesus *indulges* and *adopted* a drinking and feasting lifestyle whereas the “slander” being directed to John that he has demon was due to the fact because he refrain from that kind of lifestyle.
You see the problem here: When among drinkers, John refuses but Jesus is the drunk because he indulges. When among gluttons: John fasts, Jesus feasts. When among drunkards: John abstains, Jesus drinks.
Also the larger context in the gospel as I have mentioned in previous comment that amazingly the text in John 2:10 clearly indicate that Jesus gave more wine to people who were already drunk. So it does seems no coincidence people called him a glutton and a drunkard in Luke.
Salam
LikeLike
@Eric bin Kisam
The verses in Luke taken in isolation are not problematic, but with the other portions cited, your point has some more validity.
>that amazingly the text in John 2:10 clearly indicate that Jesus gave more wine to people who were already drunk.
Jesus giving alcohol to people who are already drunk is indeed highly problematic, as I understand it being in a state of drunkenness was still prohibited even though alcohol was not.
>So it does seems no coincidence people called him a glutton and a drunkard in Luke.
Well we know how the Jesus of John’s Gospel is a very different character then the three synoptics, and that John is by far the outlier gospel compared to the other 3. In my eyes it has the least credibility from the start. So I won’t be shocked at coincidence.
>You see the problem here: When among drinkers, John refuses but Jesus is the drunk because he indulges. When among gluttons: John fasts, Jesus feasts. When among drunkards: John abstains, Jesus drinks.
I don’t quite recall but how often is John among such people compared to Jesus? Could the accusation be more related to the company he spends time giving dawah too, rather then his actual actions?
Besides this, I would like to reiterate my strongest objection is not actually the content of the post but the posted image. Ignoring the fact that it depicts Jesus which we should not do, it depicts the Jesus of Christianity in a very poor light and is insulting. A blasphemous image of The prophet (pbuh) would be greatly offensive to the Muslims, and depicting Isa in such a manner should not sit well with us either, if it is the Christian protrayal of Jesus. Besides, what hypocrisy would it be to demand Christians show respect to our religion and not blaspheme if we do no not return the favour?
“[Believers], argue only in the best way with the People of the Book, except with those of them who act unjustly. Say, ‘We believe in what was revealed to us and in what was revealed to you; our God and your God are one [and the same]; we are devoted to Him.’ ” [Qur’an 29:46]
Salam
LikeLike
The description of Jesus being a “glutton and drunkard” is an exaggeration that his enemies would use to negatively describe him, it doesn’t necessarily mean that he ate excessively or drank excessively either. No one can deny that the Gospels present Jesus of having the highest character and even warning people against such things as taking or possessing things excessively. You cannot just isolate one part of the gospels and come to such a conclusion, it’s even more shocking coming from you Eric considering how well versed you seem to be in the Bible.
I always find it rather annoying when Muslims talk about the issue between Jesus and alcohol. Just because alcohol is prohibited in Islam it doesn’t mean it is prohibited in Judaism or Christianity (of course the Bible warns against alcohol and also prefers people to avoid it). As a Muslim you should therefore respect and understand the historical context behind someone such as Jesus not only drinking wine but even performing a miracle of wine, rather than trying to make it fit into an Islamic context.
A great example of understanding the historical context comes from the Quran itself:
Surah 16:67 – And from the fruits of the palm trees and grapevines you take intoxicant and good provision. Indeed in that is a sign for a people who reason.
Surah 2:219 – They ask you about wine and gambling. Say, “In them is great sin and [yet, some] benefit for people. But their sin is greater than their benefit.”
Surah 4:43 – O you who have believed, do not approach prayer while you are intoxicated until you know what you are saying or in a state of janabah, except those passing through [a place of prayer], until you have washed [your whole body].
Surah 5:90-91 – O you who have believed, indeed, intoxicants, gambling, [sacrificing on] stone alters [to other than Allah ], and divining arrows are but defilement from the work of Satan, so avoid it that you may be successful. Satan only wants to cause between you animosity and hatred through intoxicants and gambling and to avert you from the remembrance of Allah and from prayer. So will you not desist?
According to Muslim sources the Quran gradually brings Muslims away from drinking alcohol, however at the start of Muhammad’s mission alcohol was completely acceptable to drink amongst his companions, which is why we later find a verse mentioning that they shouldn’t be intoxicated before prayer. From a historical context then it would not have been surprising to see Jews or Christians drinking alcohol in that region or for a Christian to even mention that Jesus’ first miracle was turning water into wine. From a Quranic perspective, it would have been completely acceptable for the Jews of Jesus’ time to be drinking alcohol. This doesn’t mean that the Bible promotes drinking alcohol or getting drunk since drunkenness is a sin (Ephesians 5:18, Proverbs 20:1 and more), however just like the early revelation of the Quran the Bible acknowledges that people drink wine.
If anything I’d say the Quranic position is rather confusing considering that at one point it says alcohol has good provision to later saying it comes from the devil. If a Muslim is allowed the opportunity to explain what seems to be a contradiction or confusion in their text, you should then also give Christians and Jews or anyone else for that matter, the respect to explain their understanding too, rather than trying to squeeze everything into a strictly Islamic perspective and looking down on other people or scriptures for what they say.
LikeLike
Thank you for your comment,
The gradual prohibition of alcohol applied to the ignorant Arabs, but we are talking about the Prophet of God here. There is no records of prophet Muhammad involved in alcoholic lifestyle, even Prophet John (Yahya) are evidence in the NT as abstaining from it however why Jesus as a prophet of God (or son of God for christians) in the NT seems to indulge alcohol drink at the point he even gave more wine to people who were already drunk while even the bible itself stress the evilness of drunkeness (eg “And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit”) How do you reconcile this text?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Eric here’s how:
First of all, the only group of people in the Bible who are explicitly told not to drink wine or alcohol are Nazirites. Jesus was from Nazareth and natives from Nazareth were called Nazarenes just as people from New York are called New Yorkers or people from London called Londoners. But Nazirite and Nazarene are 2 different things. Jesus never took a Nazirite vow therefore there was no prohibition against him drinking wine.
Notice in the text (John 2:1-10) there is no indication that anyone is drunk anywhere, they simply ran out wine. There could have been more guests than wine required to serve them all. Even if that wasn’t the case, the host drank the wine and noticed the difference in quality. If he was drunk he would not have been able to do that. Finally in verse 10 when the host calls the bridegroom over he simply relates to him what he knows from experience, that people usually bring out the best wine first then the cheaper wine when people start to get drunk, however the whole passage itself doesn’t explicitly say or indicate anywhere that anyone was actually drunk even after Jesus performed the miracle.
Anything done in excess can be bad for someone. According to the Bible there is no sin in drinking wine unless you do so in excess which can lead to drunkenness (Psalm 104:15;Proverbs 20:1). This is no different to just eating bread. There is no sin in eating bread until you do so in excess which is gluttony. Anyone can abuse something which is not inherently sinful of itself. And this is the basis of Biblical provision. God has provided the planet with plenty of resources and it is up to the individual to use those resources in moderation whether it’s to do with food, drink or our lifestyles such as money and clothes.
LikeLike
John 2:1-10
The Wedding at Cana
‘On the third day there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. 2 Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding. 3 When the wine gave out, the mother of Jesus said to him, ‘They have no wine.’ 4 And Jesus said to her, ‘Woman, what concern is that to you and to me? My hour has not yet come.’ 5 His mother said to the servants, ‘Do whatever he tells you.’ 6 Now standing there were six stone water-jars for the Jewish rites of purification, each holding twenty or thirty gallons. 7 Jesus said to them, ‘Fill the jars with water.’ And they filled them up to the brim. 8 He said to them, ‘Now draw some out, and take it to the chief steward.’ So they took it. 9 When the steward tasted the water that had become wine, and did not know where it came from (though the servants who had drawn the water knew), the steward called the bridegroom 10 and said to him, ‘Everyone serves the good wine first, and then the inferior wine after the guests have become drunk. But you have kept the good wine until now.’
It is certainly possible that some guests have already become drunk, as the highlighted verse implies.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes it’s possible, but like I said there is no explicit indication.
LikeLike
I see it as clearly implicit.
LikeLike
“Wine in the Bible” Hard Preaching by Pastor Anderson. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6epbvRVXx0k
“In this sermon Pastor Anderson goes over what the bible talks about when it refers to wine. Wine in the bible is not always referring to an Alcoholic beverage. In fact lots of the time the bible is merely referring to just juice. I mean come on, do you really think when Jesus turned the water into wine it was alcoholic wine?? There is no way that Jesus would make alcohol knowing what it does to people who drink it that would be ridiculous. The bible actually says there is a type of wine we should not even look at let alone drink. And that type is Alcoholic.”
LikeLike
This picture is soo Nonsense hhhh . ” #you #say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard ” about that the liars and hypocrites people say Jesus is a glutton and a drunkard is that means u believe the #Liars and #Hypocrites in what they say !! hhh Of course Not hhh they also said Jesus does not cast out demons except by Beelzebub the ruler of the demons (Matthew 12:24) is that means what they say is truth and u believe what they Liars and hypocrites say !! hhh of course Not . The Lord God Jesus Christ is God himself , God was manifested in the flesh and he has the Complete authority to cast out the demons (Matthew 28 : 18) ( John 16:15) .(John 5:21),(John 14:9) , (John 8:58) . and he has the complete authority to put his flesh to the death and Rise his flesh from the death (John 10 : 18) because he is the Holy the Lord God who was manifested in the flesh , The flesh of God was spending so many times so many days in fasting No drink No food (Matthew 4 : 2 ) and he said ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’ (Matthew 4 : 4 ) so after all that it is so foolishness when the Liars and Hypocrites say that The Lord God Jesus Christ was a glutton and a drunkard and u believe them hhh .
LikeLike
Please try to stay on topic, the fact of the matter is that YOUR BIBLE (not th e holy Qur’an) portrays Jesus as a glutton and drunkard in Luke 7:33-34.
If you are angry about that sad fact, then direct your anger at your own book, and not Islam.
LikeLike
the muslim who is calling for peace is a drunkard muslim
The Quran commands the Muslims to drink Alcohol
We give you drink from what is in their bellies .. And from the fruits of the
palm trees and grapevines you take intoxicant and good provision. Indeed in
that is a sign for a people who reason . (Quran 16:66,67) .
the muslims do not follow the Quran here because muhammad did #abrogate these verses by
the latest Quranic verses which do contradict them Q (5:90) because muhammad found that islam
became a Joke that the muslims go to pray calling the islamic idol and they are drunkards Q(4:43)
So he was losing the religious rank that he made for himself “ his pretending to be a prophet ”
the job that he made for himself to get the praise from all muslims and no one of the muslims
can blame his faults , he can do anything he wants and the muslims will praise him no matter what
he did.Q (16:66,67) Exactly is Like the Quranic verses which the muslims use to pretend that islam
is peace Q (2:256) , Q (8:61) , Q(2:190) ,.. etc they are #abrogated verses ,the islamic explanation,the
Hadith and (Quran 2:106) muhammad proclaimed that he abrogates them to bring another verses
are better which are Fight , robbery (9:29),Terrify (8:60) , Kill (9:5) .. etc all the people who do not
believe in islam till they convert to islam till they praise muhammad as a prophet , in the begining
of muhammad’s saying that he is a prophet he was weak has no army so he could not force the
people to praise him as a prophet so he was pretending the peace to deceive the people But step
by step when he sustained his army he did abrogate the peace by forcing the people to praise him
in converting to islam . Q(5:32) is not abrogated but in its context it does command the muslims
to KILL the non muslims till they convert to Islam , But The muslims select some words from it and
remove the other words , they do cut this verse completely away of its context Q(5:33) to deceive
the people and pretend that islam is peace and tolerant but when u read/study Q(5:32) very well
u will find the people who cause corruption they take the exception means it is ok to kill them ,
those are the Non-muslims and the corruption is to disbelieve in islam . To fight allah it is not u
go up clouds and fighting him by a gun but to disbelieve in islam which does praise muhammad .
LikeLike
Your comments, are full of misinformations, hatred, and ignorance. You need to stop reading Robert spencer, and Shamoun.
LikeLike
However Muhammad was drunkard he used to drink Wine “Nabidh ”
Sahih muslim :
* We prepared Nabidh for Allah’s Messenger in a waterskin, the upper part of which was tied and it (the waterskin) had a hole (in its lower part). We prepared the Nabidh in the morning and he drank it in the evening and we prepared the Nabidh in the night, and he would drink it in the morning.
and as usual the muslims are trying to deceive the people by giving a title that the Nabidh is not intoxicant hhh , here is the meaning of Nabidh in the Arabic Lexicons and Dictionary they proclam that Nabidh is INTOXICANT drink .
the drink to be intoxicant is called Nabidh
النَّبِيذُ : شُرابٌ مُسكر يُتَّخَذُ من عصير العنب أَو التمر أَو غيرهما ، ويُترَكُ حتى يختمر والجمع : أنْبذَةٌ
https://www.almaany.com/ar/dict/ar-ar/%D9%86%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%B0/
muhammad used to drink the intoxicant because he was drunkard he was following the abrogated verses of his quran
We give you drink from what is in their bellies .. And from the fruits of the
palm trees and grapevines you take intoxicant and good provision. Indeed in
that is a sign for a people who reason . (Quran 16:66,67) .
LikeLike
It was unfermented Grape juice, not wine.
“Nabeeth is any drink that is made from dates, or grapes, or honey, or wheat, or barley, or other than that. And it is called Nabeeth whether it is intoxicating OR NOT.” (Lisan Al-Arab)
https://dawatetowheed.wordpress.com/2016/01/12/rebuttal-to-wikiislam-muhammad-drank-wine-and-performed-ablution-with-it/
LikeLike
It seems that since the verse in Luke 7:33-34 portrays Jesus as a glutton and drunkard, some Christians think that they must drag our Prophet down into the same mud and dishonor that the Bible has dragged Jesus into.
However, Prophet Muhammad (sws) and the Quranic Nabi Isa (as) are far from any such dishonorable accusations that the Bible and Christians might make against them.
If you truly love, respect and honor Jesus, you would happily reject the Biblical accusations against him, and accept the Qur’an which absolves him of such sinful acts. Your hatred for Islam, blinds you from the truth.
LikeLike
https://bloggingtheologydotnet.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/drunkard.jpg?w=261&h=300
LikeLike
John 2:1-12, because of verse 10, cannot be about “unfermented grape juice”. Preachers who try to make that case really stretch credulity.
To drink wine is not a sin; but getting drunk is a sin. (Ephesians 5:18)
Wine is a symbol of joy and celebration. (Psalm 4:7; Psalm 104:15; Isaiah 55:1)
The main points are that Jesus went to a wedding, confirming the meaning of marriage, a wedding being a public ceremony & declaration & joy celebration of what marriage means ( one man and one woman), affirming Genesis 1-2 on marriage (see also Matthew 19:4-6); and the miracle of turning water into wine is about the new joy in the new covenant and witness to Jesus’ glory and power. (John 2:11 – a miracle-sign and Jesus manifested His glory as the eternal Son, the Messiah, God in the flesh (John 17:5). The water pots in verse 6 represent the “Jewish custom of purification”, that external washings in water cannot change the heart into a heart of joy and power over sin; that we have to have God’s miracle power of changing us on the inside, not the dead letter of the law in only external ritual.
Luke 7:33-34 does not mean Jesus was actually a drunkard and a glutton, only that the people who rejected Him were accusing Him of that; but He never sinned (John 8:46; Hebrews 4:15; Hebrews 7:26; 2 Cor. 5:21)
To be falsely accused of something does not mean the Bible portrays Jesus as a drunk or glutton, just as the people were wrong to accuse John the Baptist as having a demon.
The point is,when you see the context of Luke 7:29-35 (which you left out surrounding verses), is that the Pharisees and the lawyers “rejected God’s purpose for themselves” (verse 30) – they rejected both John (verse 30, “rejected God’s purpose for themselves, NOT having been baptized by John”) the Baptist AND Jesus.
He is showing the fickleness of the people that are like children, rejecting both of these prophets (yes Jesus is also a prophet, but more than a prophet.) (verse 32)
and verse 35 – “Yet wisdom is vindicated / proved right (justified – εδικαιωθη from dikaiow / δικαιοω) by all her children” = John the Baptist is proved right by his deeds and fruit, and Jesus is also vindicated and proved right by His deeds.
So, the context beginning in verse 26 and the conclusion in verse 35 shows the exact opposite of what you are trying to accuse the Bible of in verses 33-34.
LikeLike
“Wine is a symbol of joy and celebration. (Psalm 4:7; Psalm 104:15; Isaiah 55:1)”
jesus “al masih” was an alcoholic
https://turchisrong.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/god-approves-of-alcoholism-proverbs-31.html
LikeLike
https://turchisrong.blogspot.co.uk/2017/07/james-patrick-holdings-intentional.html
LikeLike
“but He never sinned (John 8:46; Hebrews 4:15; Hebrews 7:26; 2 Cor. 5:21)”
that’s a lie, he was a sinner. he was born with a nature which had hate, lust and anger. jesus said his nature which he had thinks of hate, lust and anger. ot says all humans who are born of a woman are impure.
Job 25:4- How then can man be in the right before God? How can he who is born of woman be pure?
LikeLike
Because Jesus was born of the virgin Mary; His Divine Nature protected Him from any taint of a sinful human nature. Luke 1:34-35
God cannot lie – Titus 1:2
and since John 8:46, Hebrews 4:15; 7:26; and 2 Cor. 5:21 are holy God-breathed Scripture, then all together this proves that it is you Mr.heathcliff, who is wrong.
LikeLike
mary was born because of Adam. since Mary had to have fully produced the human nature in her womb, then he had her chromosomes in his person. so your god was cloned and bible admits that like Adam Jesus ” son of MAN” was TEMPTED. so it is only NATURAL TO assume that jesus had a nature of HATE, LUST AND anger. it is a LIE to say that ” god PROTECTED” according to your theology no protection is there for one “born in sin” and jesus WAS BORN in sin, he had ADAMS sinful nature in him, actually it is worse for jesus, since generation after generation came after Adam and sin kept on ACCUMILATING so it is possible jesus HAD worse sin in him, then the first man who in the beginning lived a naked life and didn’t even know the difference between wrong and right.
now be CONSISTENT. you have looked at the sins of the world and said original sin is real, now look at the nature and see that jesus is MADE UP OF sinful nature. Don’t be a DISGUSTING INCONSISTENT liar.
LikeLike
Adam wasn’t even born in sin and he didn’t even have parents, what chance did jesus have ? the ot says jesus “son of man” and ” born of a woMAN ” was impure SINFUL creature FULL OF HATE, LUST AND ANGER.
LikeLike
mr.heathcliff –
You are just being obstinate and dull, like you do a lot. When many verses say that Jesus was sinless, that is it. (John 8:46, 2 Cor. 5:21; I Peter 2:21-25; Hebrews 4:15; 7:26) – The Divine nature and virgin conception/birth explain this; but you are too dull and obstinate to accept the Divine verses.
LikeLike
wouldn’t it naturally piss people of to hear that god was only protecting a CREATED Jewish copy of himself , yet all the prophets born of a woman were under the curse of original sin? Such a god produces hatred in the heart for him, what a unfair biased piece of invention. so he gives ppl original cursed nature and when people try to fight god give. NATURE, it still is not good enough. Such a god can go to hell and burn therein for ever. This is your LOVING god?
LikeLike
mr.heathcliff – your strange ranting and goofy answers are not logical, nor understandable.
LikeLike
”
When many verses say that Jesus was sinless, that is it.”
it is perfectly fine for SWINE eater like you to JUDGE the human condition when you see people killing each other and making others SUFFER, you call it “original sin”
when i JUDGE jesus BASED on what the torah says about HUMAN beings, you call it ”
You are just being obstinate and dull, like you do a lot”
this is the BASTARD condition christianity hAS CREATED within you.
”
(John 8:46, 2 Cor. 5:21; I Peter 2:21-25; Hebrews 4:15; 7:26) – The Divine nature and virgin conception/birth explain this; but you are too dull and obstinate to accept the Divine verses.”
john , corin and hebrews are LIARS who were doing ADULTERY with a jew who was BORN impure .
your god EXISTED as FULLY human
born of a woman
had the NATURE of adam in him
WAS tempted
was BAPTIZED by john
“divine nature” DOES not even MIX with the human nature. human nature is COMPLETELY created and EXPOSED to temptations, so judge jesus based on REALITY of human condition and based on what torah says.
jesus was SINNER and BORN with A NATURE of hate, LUST and anger.
all i am asking you to be consistent in your method .
:
you said you don’t understand what i was saying, let me exposed your filthy and dirty BIASED slime god this way :
Xianity is like a pinball game where there’s only two types of things in the gameboard: “Sin,” which earns you negative points, and “Communion” which brings your score back to zero. It is possible to earn a positive score, but only if you cheat. But in order to cheat, you have to be a god. If you don’t happen to be a god, forget it. Why would anyone in an arcade waste a quarter playing this silly game?
THERE does that make sense to you ?
:::::::::::::::
LikeLike
Drinking a glass of wine with a meal or celebration at a wedding does not make one an alcoholic.
LikeLike
Your best candidate has the same attitude seemingly toward liking sexual content on the internet!
“But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the fruit you get leads to sanctification and its end, eternal life.”
The reality of christians’ life keeps slapping Paul’s teaching!
LikeLike
I don’t know what you are talking about (“best candidate” = ?), but Romans 6:22 is true for those who are truly born -again by God’s Spirit.
LikeLike
Oh, I guess you mean “your best candidate for President of the US” = in your view of ‘best” = Donald Trump. He is not a Christian. that is obvious. He cannot be a Christian because he does not even understand the most basic thing about Christianity. (he said he never confesses or repents of his sin; never admits he is a sinner. One cannot be a Christian with that attitude. ) He was not the best candidate in the nomination process; but he won.
LikeLike
Ken,
Who’s your best candidate for President of the US ?
Check the late news about his account on Twitter.
Regarding DT, he’s the best candidate for the most white christians.
LikeLike
Lots of other kinds of conservatives that are not Christian voted for him also.
Only because Hillary was worse, a corrupt person, and believes in murdering babies in the womb and same sex marriage and Leftism (so called “progressive liberal Democrat” = atheism, homosexuality, Marxism, abortion (murder), big government, etc.
LikeLike
”
When many verses say that Jesus was sinless, that is it.”
it is perfectly fine for SWINE eater like you to JUDGE the human condition when you see people killing each other and making others SUFFER, you call it “original sin”
when i JUDGE jesus BASED on what the torah says about HUMAN beings, you call it ”
You are just being obstinate and dull, like you do a lot”
this is the BASTARD condition christianity hAS CREATED within you.
”
(John 8:46, 2 Cor. 5:21; I Peter 2:21-25; Hebrews 4:15; 7:26) – The Divine nature and virgin conception/birth explain this; but you are too dull and obstinate to accept the Divine verses.”
john , corin and hebrews are LIARS who were doing ADULTERY with a jew who was BORN impure .
your god EXISTED as FULLY human
born of a woman
had the NATURE of adam in him
WAS tempted
was BAPTIZED by john
“divine nature” DOES not even MIX with the human nature. human nature is COMPLETELY created and EXPOSED to temptations, so judge jesus based on REALITY of human condition and based on what torah says.
jesus was SINNER and BORN with A NATURE of hate, LUST and anger.
all i am asking you to be consistent in your method .
:
you said you don’t understand what i was saying, let me exposed your filthy and dirty BIASED slime god this way :
Xianity is like a pinball game where there’s only two types of things in the gameboard: “Sin,” which earns you negative points, and “Communion” which brings your score back to zero. It is possible to earn a positive score, but only if you cheat. But in order to cheat, you have to be a god. If you don’t happen to be a god, forget it. Why would anyone in an arcade waste a quarter playing this silly game?
THERE does that make sense to you ?
:::::::::::::::
LikeLike
” When many verses say that Jesus was sinless, that is it.”
yet he is “born of a woman ” and called “son of MAN” many times
…OF MAN.
now EXPLAIN “son of MAN ”
BIN ADAM
in OT . what is OT’S opinion of “bin adam” ?
LikeLike
your son of man/bin adam
quote :
A. Wet Dreams; B. Colds and Flues every winter ; C. Sexual thoughts (either gay or straight);
D. Picking his nose; E. Bad breath; F. Bad teeth / a rotten tooth; G. Nightmares; H.
I. Indigestion; J. Needed vision correction; K. Gas; L. Over weight or under weight; M. Balding;
N. Constipation; O. Balding / hair loss; P. Diarrhea / food poisoning; Q. Nervousness; R. Depression;
S. Stinking rectum / hemorrhoids; T. High blood pressure; U. Acne as a teenager; V. Bucked teeth;
W. High / Low blood sugar; X. Alleges; Y. Warts; Z. Cold sores.
end quote
so how HUMAN was your “son of MAN” ?
NOW BE consistent. according to your beliefs yhwh HAS failed to PRODUCE the fruits of his instructions TILL THIS day. every one is “born in sin” and CURSED with god given NATURE. no POINT FIGHTING A god GIVEN nature. in ot, in when the spirit of yhwh hovers above people, it still can’t produce good which satisfies yhwh. so my question is, what CHANCE does your BIN adam HAVE?
LikeLike
“Xianity is like a pinball game……….”
Good analogy!! Does that mean that the song by Elton John, “Pinball Wizard” was actually about Christianity?
LikeLike
“mr.heathcliff – your strange ranting and goofy answers are not logical, nor understandable.”
hopefully uri yosef will help you see my logic better
quote :
Douggg, Notwithstanding what Sophie wrote, here is another perspective. Let’s first assume that the Gospel writers had some familiarity with the Hebrew language and the expression בֶּן־אָדָם [BEN-aDAM], which literally translates as son-of-Adam and is usually translated in the Bible as son-of-man (e.g., Ezekiel 2:1), is normally used to refer to a person, i.e., a regular flesh&blood human being. Now let’s assume that the Gospel writers had some familiarity with the Aramaic vernacular and the expression בַּר אֱנָשׁ [BAR eNASH], which literally translates as son-of-a person, and is translated in the Bible as son-of-man (e.g., Daniel 7:13), and it refers to a person, i.e., a regular flesh&blood human being. So, either way, their references to “the Son-of-Man”, in which the letters “s” and “m” were capitalized in an attempt to change the context, even though there is no upper/lower case differentiation in the Hebrew alphabet, the expression still refers to an ordinary human being, not to an allegedly divine son-of-God. If it were the Gospel writers’ intent to actually characterize “J” as “the Son of God”, they could have borrowed from the respective Hebrew and/or Aramaic expressions for it, both of which appear in the Hebrew Bible (the Aramaic example is at Daniel 3:25; the Hebrew one appears only in plural form, e.g., Job 38:7), although in neither case do those expressions mean “a divine son of God”. So, even though Christians claim that “J” is not of Adam’s seed, that claim is contradicted by the phrase “Son-of-Man” that is so widely used in the CT, even though it has been artificially manipulated by substituting capitalized letters.
UriYosef
/////
there. how was that? did you get what i was trying to say?
LikeLike
You are just copying and pasting and not making sense. No; I don’t understand what you are trying to say.
The New Testament already established for about 2000 years that Jesus is both God and man; that He has 2 natures, and that He is one person. The scriptural truths were worked out and debated over time and culminated in the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD and the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD. (but all the data / information was there in the Scriptures of first century.)
LikeLike