Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! <snort, sputter, gasp> ah-ha-ha-ha-ha!!!
Thanks, Der Trihs! (sincerely) I really needed a good laugh! 
I am SO, going to rot in Hell, if there really is one.
kanicbird
Can I get an, AMEN and HALLELUJAH, Praise the LORD?! 
<runs away, laughing hysterically>
Now we have to get into the physiological definition of “drunk”.
Alcohol has immediate effects to the brain and many bodily organs even at a small dose but the exact effects can vary widely between individuals.
Any reasonably healthy male in Jesus’ time would be drunk more often than not if they were not abject poor, whether or not they kept on being functional in their every day life. Not to mention they may have built up a tolerance to the lack of coordination affected by alcohol use if they started drinking in their teens, which is very likely that they did.
Well, drinking any amount of alcohol at all affects you to some extent, and if you’re going to define that as “drunk” then the question “did Jesus ever get drunk?” is the same as “did Jesus ever drink alcohol?” and the answer, obviously, is “yes”. But I don’t think that’s what the OP meant; if he meant that he would have justed asked something like “did they have, and drink, alcohol in first-century palestine?”
If we adopt this rather expansive notion of “drunk”, then I’m not sure why you think only “reasonably healthy males” would be drunk often. Did the frail and the female not drink? Nor do I see why you would think that people did not start drinking until their teens, or that the poor didn’t drink.
Wine was mostly easier to obtain, and certainly easier to store, than fresh potable water. When people drank water, they generally mixed wine with it anyway, partly because they liked the taste and partly because its antiseptic qualities were of some benefit when the quality of the water supply was variable, as it mostly was.
Or maybe it’s like Marilyn Monroe and JFK: You don’t even care if he’s a good lay, you just do him because how often do you get a chance to fuck God?!
I didn’t say “only” anything.
Jesus, if he was a reasonably healthy male, he would be under the influence of alcohol most of the time.
If an average male was not healthy then it’s likely he would have increased his consumption of alcohol to alleviate his health symptoms.
I can’t posit about women because it’s very likely women were not allowed to behave as men did in that society.
So if he were an unhealthy male he would still have been under the influence of alcohol most of the time? Perhaps even more under the influence?
Seems to me that your reference to health here is a bit of a red herring. Healthy or unhealthy, people drank wine daily and, in that sense, they were “under the influence” of wine most of the time.
They weren’t allowed to behave as men did in many respects, but I’ve never heard it suggested that they had a different diet. They used wine in the same way that men did. Why wouldn’t they?
But drinking wine routinely, and experiencing the physical effects of that, does not translate to men and women being routinely drunk, in the sense in which that word is commonly used (and, I don’t doubt, in the sense in which it was used in the OP).
The culture of the time certainly did have an understanding of drunkenness and what it entailed, and it was not the condition resulting from the routine consumption of wine as they practised it.
I’m picturing Jesus on the cross.
Roman Centurion: Well, you can’t walk a straight line, you can’t touch your nose with your fingers, I’m arresting you for public intoxication.
Yes.
Yes.
Because wine was considered valuable, therefore not at the wish of consumption of lower class people, like females or slaves.
What makes you think wine was considered valuable? Good wine presumably commanded a premium price, but everyday table wine was mostly easier to come by, easier to supply and easier to keep, than safe fresh potable water. In most places it was likely cheaper, too.
The daily beverages of the proletarian first-century Palestinian were brackish water and cheap wine and, most commonly, the two mixed together.
Jesus either got drunk or he didn’t; leaving out the possibility of a mild buzz. Or the possibility that one drink of alcohol made him physically ill to the point that he never took another drink. Or the possibility that he drank himself into a stupor every day or night. In the absence of eye witnesses, the question is unanswerable. And at this point in time, what would it matter one way or the other? Or to put the question more succinctly, who cares and why should anyone care one way or the other?
For several reasons, I don’t feel well this morning. In fact, I’d have to get better in order to feel well enough to die. Excuse the snark, please; being not up to snuff is my only excuse.
Sick or not, I still believe we should have a god forum all to itself. We should stop cluttering up the other forums with questions that are unanswerable.
This isn’t inherently unanswerable. There are references in scripture to other scriptural figures getting drunk, so there’s no a priori reason why there couldn’t have been a specific reference to Jesus getting drunk. So it’s a reasonable question to ask. And, as we’ve seen, while there is no specific reference to his getting drunk, there is plenty of scriptural evidence that he drank, and that he was accused of drunkenness, which may not fully and directly answer the question asked, they certainly cast a good deal of light on the subject.
This is a question about Jesus, not a questions about God. Even if it were a question about God, not all such questions are inherently unanswerable. You don’t want to read threads on topics of religious interest, that’s fine. Skip ‘em. That’s how I deal with questions that deal with US television shows. But I don’t think you can reasonably ask to have the forum design tailored to your personal tastes.
I don’t know about Jesus, but his Dad… I mean, just look at this place. It’s a mess!
Perhaps an intervention is in order . . . Though the AA Twelve Steps might not be suitable, He would have a problem with the “Higher Power” thing . . . Perhaps He could try Secular Sobriety . .