But eveyone thought they were drunk...

[Gerald Creasy]

Time and time again I see the excuse "everyone thought they were drunk" in relation to the excess and abuses in the name of the Spirit.

If activities while drunk is the standard then lets add a few more: laying in your own vomit, urinating on your self, beating on your wife, fighting total strangers.

If you claim THIS IS RIDICULOUS, I agree it certainly IS.

BUT REMEMBER YOU have set the standard "things drunk people do" to justify wildfire excesses in Pentecostal services.


WHAT standard SHOULD be used??

[CantBCoy]

I'm sorry, but this is just Laugh Out Loud funny!

[Pastor Gary]

We all know about drunks... there are happy drunks, belligerent drunks, crying drunks, staggering drunks, passed-out drunks, puking drunks, fighting drunks... but we like to pick and choose from the list, don't we?

The thing about Pentecost: after the day of pentecost there were no lines of people each day waiting to get into the Upper Room Outpouring. They dispersed and preached Jesus.

[soulsearcher]

Time and time again I see the excuse "everyone thought they were drunk" in relation to the excess and abuses in the name of the Spirit.

If activities while drunk is the standard then lets add a few more: laying in your own vomit, urinating on your self, beating on your wife, fighting total strangers.

Gerald, you left out being the lone survivor of head-on collisions.

[dalebert]

So then Gary, Gerald.....give us a definition of what the phrase"they have had too much wine" is saying to us! im just seeking a true understanding of this.....

[CantBCoy]

dalebert wrote:

So then Gary, Gerald.....give us a definition of what the phrase"they have had too much wine" is saying to us! im just seeking a true understanding of this.....

Let me start by saying I apologize for being neither Gary nor Gerald, but I do have an opinion on this. While what Gerald says in the beginning of this thread is often the most extreme form of drunkeness it can be said that what you see in Lakeland could also be considered an extreme form of drunkeness. It has been my particular experience with people that drink and get drunk that, while some of them do reach these extremes, most of them simply seem to lose their ability to control what they say. I believe (only speculation here with no scriptural support) the references made about those filled with the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost as being drunk referred particularly to that form of drunkeness. That is, the inability to control what they were saying. But it also happened that instead of saying merely words of gibberish or nonsense they were indeed declaring something grand. They couldn't help themselves but to declare the kingdom of God in every tongue. You see when people are drunk they lose the capacity to withold the thins in their heart and the heart of the disciples that day was filled with the Lord and His marvelous works. My .02 cents.

Joel

[Pastor Gary]

So then Gary, Gerald.....give us a definition of what the phrase"they have had too much wine" is saying to us! im just seeking a true understanding of this.....

You tell me -- I hear people excusing stupidity, foolishness and crazy behavior by referencing Acts 2... yet the crowd stuck around and listened to a sermon by one of those they thought drunk, Peter, so he must not have been acting so bizarre --- I wouldn't stay and watch a drunk make a speech.

[THE RAzEr]

Time and time again I see the excuse "everyone thought they were drunk" in relation to the excess and abuses in the name of the Spirit.

If activities while drunk is the standard then lets add a few more: laying in your own vomit, urinating on your self, beating on your wife, fighting total strangers.

If you claim THIS IS RIDICULOUS, I agree it certainly IS.

BUT REMEMBER YOU have set the standard "things drunk people do" to justify wildfire excesses in Pentecostal services.


WHAT standard SHOULD be used??

So Gerald what does the scripture say. Enlighten us. Are you saying some people thought the 120 were laying in puke and urine. This is worse than anything I have heard you say about what Bentley is preaching.

I don't want to mis qoute you, but would you please think about what you are Prophesying.

I know the Bible says Peter told them these are not drunk as ye suppose, but why did they think one of the disciples was peeing on himself and beating his wife. i just don't see all that.

Have you been seeing Emma yourself. Is she riding on a pink elephant.


Ray

Ray

[one love]

We all know about drunks... there are happy drunks, belligerent drunks, crying drunks, staggering drunks, passed-out drunks, puking drunks, fighting drunks... but we like to pick and choose from the list, don't we?

The thing about Pentecost: after the day of pentecost there were no lines of people each day waiting to get into the Upper Room Outpouring. They dispersed and preached Jesus.

I was the fighting drunk so I would not have done good

It is refering to the fact that when they were filled with the holy ghost the bible says that they spoke in tongues and in there own language, that is why some that watched said "are they drunk"

[THE RAzEr]

So then Gary, Gerald.....give us a definition of what the phrase"they have had too much wine" is saying to us! im just seeking a true understanding of this.....

You tell me -- I hear people excusing stupidity, foolishness and crazy behavior by referencing Acts 2... yet the crowd stuck around and listened to a sermon by one of those they thought drunk, Peter, so he must not have been acting so bizarre --- I wouldn't stay and watch a drunk make a speech.

So they did. Is not this amazing. he was bizarre enough that they though him drunk. Yet they stayed. Some believed before he began his message. they did not run from these semingly drunk, tongue talking Galilians. They stayed to here the message! So seeming to be drunk, is not a prerquisite for driving people away from the message. As amatter of fact it was the visible focus of the messAGE. "THIS IS THAT".

Ray

[Gerald Creasy]

So Gerald what does the scripture say. Enlighten us. Are you saying some people thought the 120 were laying in puke and urine. This is worse than anything I have heard you say about what Bentley is preaching.

I don't want to mis qoute you, but would you please think about what you are Prophesying.

I know the Bible says Peter told them these are not drunk as ye suppose, but why did they think one of the disciples was peeing on himself and beating his wife. i just don't see all that.

Have you been seeing Emma yourself. Is she riding on a pink elephant.


Ray

Ray

If you say "things drunk people do" is the standard by which behavior is gauged,
then "things drunk people do" is the standard by which behavior is gauged.

You have no limits because "things drunk people do" has no limits.

THE MOMENT you say "that's too much" you violate your own standard and are judging it by some other standard because to the intoxicated there is no "too much".


You say you know the Bible corrects them but that does not provide a reason WHY that ASSUMPTION made by PASSERS BY which HAD TO BE CORRECTED BY PETER is used as a STANDARD by which behavior is gauged.

[THE RAzEr]

So Gerald what does the scripture say. Enlighten us. Are you saying some people thought the 120 were laying in puke and urine. This is worse than anything I have heard you say about what Bentley is preaching.

I don't want to mis qoute you, but would you please think about what you are Prophesying.

I know the Bible says Peter told them these are not drunk as ye suppose, but why did they think one of the disciples was peeing on himself and beating his wife. i just don't see all that.

Have you been seeing Emma yourself. Is she riding on a pink elephant.


Ray

Ray

If you say "things drunk people do" is the standard by which behavior is gauged,
then "things drunk people do" is the standard by which behavior is gauged.

You have no limits because "things drunk people do" has no limits.

THE MOMENT you say "that's too much" you violate your own standard and are judging it by some other standard because to the intoxicated there is no "too much".


You say you know the Bible corrects them but that does not provide a reason WHY that ASSUMPTION made by PASSERS BY which HAD TO BE CORRECTED BY PETER is used as a STANDARD by which behavior is gauged.

But Gerald, the people who were ther made an assumption based on what they saw. As Paul said if all speak with tongues, people woulge judge us mad. There was something which brought them to the assumption. A policeman stops someone because he suspects them of being intoxicated. Do they have to be urinating on themselves. Of course not!

Niether diid the 120 have to be. There was something which reminded some of the people who were there of drunk people or Peter would not have made the correction.

You are the very first person I have ever heard try to imply the 120 had to be doing every thing every drunk person has ever done in order to have reminded the on lookers of drunk people.

It is the Holy Scripture writen by Holy men of God moved on by the Holy Ghost which has these folks supposing the 120 were drunk. I will side with the Holy Ghost. The on lookers supposed them drunk. The 120 may have peed their britched for all I know, but aren't you glad we don't have too. If someone does though, I guess I'll let you be the one to say, "I told you so!"

Ray

[dolfan]

I think it is crucially important to realize the context of the drunkenness perception. Pentecost was a Jewish festival (by another name) celebrating first fruits. Every Jewish man over 20 was required by the Torah to attend. They were solemn, studious, and devoted days. And, they were days in which the morning prayers were followed by drinking wine and eating bread as part of the festival. To see these people, these 120, among whom some or all probably were participants in the thoroughly Judaic festival complete with its customs, observances of the Law, etc., proclaiming this message in different languages but at the same time, would reasonably cause onlookers and passers by to question if they had imbibed in a bit too much of the morning wine and bread. There is ample historic study to support this view, and no scholarly study of note to support a sort of "shoutin' service" environment of this gathering. These were serious people acting seriously. From this context, Peter arose and spoke seriously and directly, and with warning, of sin, judgment, redemption, and the practical meaning of the messages of those foreign-language speakers (those speaking in tongues). Everything about this is a solemn occasion, met with fear by those who believed, and repentance.

There is absolutely no comparison to the "drunkenness" of charismatic carrying-on and the "drunkenness" of the day of Pentecost. There is more of a comparison, in my view, to charismatic "drunk-in-the-Spirit" behavior and what goes on in a juke joint.

[Poimen]

But Gerald, the people who were ther made an assumption based on what they saw. As Paul said if all speak with tongues, people woulge judge us mad. There was something which brought them to the assumption. A policeman stops someone because he suspects them of being intoxicated. Do they have to be urinating on themselves. Of course not!

And that is PRECISELY Gerald's point. This passage does not support all manner of excess however much it may resemble a drunken stupor.

[Pastor Gary]

This passage does not support all manner of excess however much it may resemble a drunken stupor.

Do you find it as odd as I do to have some seem to suggest that we are somehow against the genuine presence, indwelling and manifestations of the Holy Spirit because we are calling for the exposure and repudiation of the false, man-centered, show-biz substitute?

It's just crazy.

I tried to think of a comparison, and it's hard to come up with an accurate one, but...

Let's say somebody opened a fuel station, and announced "COME GET SOME!" They had a beautifully equipped place, people were lined up for hours to get to the pumps... the liquid was almost the right color, smelled almost like gas, and sort of made the vehicle run... but there was something just not right. The stuff was not gas at all, and would cause severe damage to engines if used instead of gas... but you could COME GET SOME, and others were raving about it. They knew a man who used it and got great mileage, and it didn't ruin HIS engine.

Anyone who said, "You know, I don't feel good at all about putting that source of power in my vehicle... I'll stick with gas, thanks... and by the ay, YOU should be careful what you're putting into YOUR tank, too!" was thought of as an enemy of the new move of fuel-source-technology, and labeled as suspect.

(Yeah, I know -- the analogy needs work, and I am certain Ray will be on this one like white on rice...)