I
Imagican
Guest
Acts 2
1And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.
2And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.
3And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.
4And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
5And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.
6Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.
7And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?
8And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
9Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,
10Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,
11Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.
12And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this?
13Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.
15For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.
Now, if this is not PURE PROOF that 'new wine' CONTAINED alcohol, I don't know what you are looking for.
The diciples of Chirst started speaking in 'tongues'. Many of those that witnessed this 'ASSUMED' that these people were DRUNK. Now, how do you suppose one would get 'DRUNK' from alcohol-FREE grape juice?
New wine was simply THAT. BEFORE wine was AGED, (NOT FERMENTED), it was considered NEW WINE. Wine of this sort WAS cheaper than that which had been 'AGED'. And with the aging process MANY of the chemical compounds that make for a 'ROUGH BUZZ' are FURTHER 'broken down' and eliminated therefore making AGED wine of much more value and quality.
I would suggest that you do some research of HISTORY rather than the writtings of someone OPPOSED to alcohol. You know, PEOPLE can WRITE anything according to their OPINIONS. They can offer ONLY that which backs their OWN opinion.
Now, all I ask is that you explain HOW this 'new wine' that the diciples were accused of 'having drunk' could have ANY bearing on this passage if the wine were NOT fermented and therefore containing alcohol, (a reasonable explanation that is).
And to further illustrate what I SAY that this event entails, Peter, hearing what others said mockingly, states; "15For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.
Now, OBVIOUSLY those that mocked BELIEVED that the diciples WERE DRUNK. Peter STATES this without dispute. Now, HOW DOES ONE GET DRUNK OFF OF WINE WITH NO ALCOHOL? There MUST be fermentation for there to BE ALCOHOL. Therefore NEW WINE HAD to be fermented otherwise this entire story makes NO SENSE WHATSOEVER, for those that accused STATED 'NEW WINE'.
So, I know that there are those denominations that REFUSE to accept the 'TRUTH' about alcohol. That is 'their' problem. But for those that have read and accepted The Word WITHOUT the influence of those that would BIND them once again under laws that DO NOT EXIST in The Word, they KNOW that there is NOTHING 'sinful' about the consumption of alcohol. Excess CAN and WILL lead to ALL KINDS of problems both PHYSICAL and SPIRITUAL. But we KNOW that Jesus and His apostles DRANK wine that contained alcohol.
Heck, we KNOW from history that EVEN children drank wine that HAD BEEN FERMENTED. Not for the sake of becoming DRUNK, but because water was SO DANGEROUS in many places and beer and wine were relatively FREE from the bacteria found in MUCH OF THE WORLDS water supply in that time period.
MEC
1And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.
2And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.
3And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.
4And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
5And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.
6Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.
7And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?
8And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
9Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,
10Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,
11Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.
12And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this?
13Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.
15For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.
Now, if this is not PURE PROOF that 'new wine' CONTAINED alcohol, I don't know what you are looking for.
The diciples of Chirst started speaking in 'tongues'. Many of those that witnessed this 'ASSUMED' that these people were DRUNK. Now, how do you suppose one would get 'DRUNK' from alcohol-FREE grape juice?
New wine was simply THAT. BEFORE wine was AGED, (NOT FERMENTED), it was considered NEW WINE. Wine of this sort WAS cheaper than that which had been 'AGED'. And with the aging process MANY of the chemical compounds that make for a 'ROUGH BUZZ' are FURTHER 'broken down' and eliminated therefore making AGED wine of much more value and quality.
I would suggest that you do some research of HISTORY rather than the writtings of someone OPPOSED to alcohol. You know, PEOPLE can WRITE anything according to their OPINIONS. They can offer ONLY that which backs their OWN opinion.
Now, all I ask is that you explain HOW this 'new wine' that the diciples were accused of 'having drunk' could have ANY bearing on this passage if the wine were NOT fermented and therefore containing alcohol, (a reasonable explanation that is).
And to further illustrate what I SAY that this event entails, Peter, hearing what others said mockingly, states; "15For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.
Now, OBVIOUSLY those that mocked BELIEVED that the diciples WERE DRUNK. Peter STATES this without dispute. Now, HOW DOES ONE GET DRUNK OFF OF WINE WITH NO ALCOHOL? There MUST be fermentation for there to BE ALCOHOL. Therefore NEW WINE HAD to be fermented otherwise this entire story makes NO SENSE WHATSOEVER, for those that accused STATED 'NEW WINE'.
So, I know that there are those denominations that REFUSE to accept the 'TRUTH' about alcohol. That is 'their' problem. But for those that have read and accepted The Word WITHOUT the influence of those that would BIND them once again under laws that DO NOT EXIST in The Word, they KNOW that there is NOTHING 'sinful' about the consumption of alcohol. Excess CAN and WILL lead to ALL KINDS of problems both PHYSICAL and SPIRITUAL. But we KNOW that Jesus and His apostles DRANK wine that contained alcohol.
Heck, we KNOW from history that EVEN children drank wine that HAD BEEN FERMENTED. Not for the sake of becoming DRUNK, but because water was SO DANGEROUS in many places and beer and wine were relatively FREE from the bacteria found in MUCH OF THE WORLDS water supply in that time period.
MEC
