Results 21 - 40 of 132
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Tim Sheasby Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | What is 'the fruit of the vine'? | Matt 26:29 | Tim Sheasby | 34478 | ||
What is 'the fruit of the vine'? Most people in American protestant churches or in churches rooted in American Protestantism believe it is "any fruit of the vine" or that it is "grape juice". At first glance, the phrase could be taken to mean anything that originates in the vine. However, if we are to practice good principles of hermeneutics, we need to establish the scope of meaning (if any) as it was used in the first century. This has been discussed to some extent in the context of 1 Cor 11:17 ff. However, I have been doing some further study on this and have found that the more I study, the more evidence I find that it can only be wine and can never be grape juice. Have any of you got any evidence that contradicts this? I will be posting some more thorough notes in due course. | ||||||
22 | What is 'the fruit of the vine'? | Matt 26:29 | Tim Sheasby | 34629 | ||
Thanks for the quotes but . . . 1. Prov 23:29-33. This verse is talking about someone who drinks too much, not someone drinking in moderation. The Bible roundly condemns drunkenness but also speaks of the blessing of wine. Historic fact: Grape juice, in Jesus time, was only available for a day or two after harvest as in that warm climate fermentation began almost immediately. Grape juice as we have it today is the result of Thomas Welch developing the technique of pasteurising grape juice in 1869 (This can be verified by a quick visit to Welch's website). By Jewish tradition at the time of Christ pasteurised grape juice would have been unacceptable for passover because it had been boiled. Moreover the blessing on "the fruit of the vine" could only be prayed over wine. If they had had grape juice available at the time the blessing for that would have been "the fruit of the tree" (Mishna Berakoth 6.5). 2. Luke 1. This is talking about John the Baptist and has reference to the Nazarite vow. This vow actually forbade any consumption of anything that came from the vine including: pips, juice, grapes, wine and vinegar. However, Nazarites were not exempt from drinking the required cups at passover -- even though these cups contained wine. Another point of interest: grapes have yeast on their skins naturally. It is virtually impossible to wash off. Since this is the case, when grapes are crushed the resulting juice has yeast or leaven in it. If this juice is pasteurised (to kill any bacteria or yeast) the yeast remains in the resulting liquid. However, in the wine making process the yeast grows and multiplies while converting the sugar to carbon dioxide and alcohol. When the alcohol reaches about 18 percent the alcohol kills the yeast and the yeast begins to settle to the botom of the vat. Through a process of "racking" wine makers clarify the wine by pouring off the clear liquid from the sludge (leys) in the vat. In addition, ancient wine makers put clay into this wine to help the sedimentation that results in a clear wine. At the end of this process, wine is unleavened and grape juice is not. God provided a mechanism for the wine used at Passover to conform to the law that they have no leaven in their homes. Although the ancients did not even realise this I Believe this is another evidence of God's wonderful providence. I see a symbolism in this. There is an equation of sin with leaven. For the Lord's Supper, Jesus used unleavened bread. It was the job of the people to ensure that their bread was unleavened. So too with the church that the bread represents -- It is our job to keep the church as pure as we can. The wine that represents Jesus blood, however, is also pure of the yeast (sin) and that was God's job to take care of. God has always been responsible for the sinlessness of the blood. This is just my personal opinion but may be of interest to you and others. Jesus DID drink wine. When accused of being a drunkard or winebibber if he was a tee totaler he would have said so but instead he said "For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, 'He has a demon!' The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Behold, a gluttonous man and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!' Yet wisdom is vindicated by her deeds." Matt 11:1. Please note that Jesus did not deny drinking alcohol. There is a difference between drinking and drunkenness. |
||||||
23 | What is 'the fruit of the vine'? | Matt 26:29 | Tim Sheasby | 34630 | ||
Amen!!! I believe churches today have done what Jesus condemned the Pharisees for doing. In the 1800s the temperance movement started teaching that all alcohol was evil. I personally give them the benefit of the doubt here. I believe their intentions were good. Their reasoning may have been that since drunkenness was condemned by God then if you abstain from alcohol totally then there is no chance of ever becoming drunk. The result, however, is that instead of learning the biblical principle of moderation the church adopted the acetic principle of abstention. I read somewere that alcoholism statistics amongst people from alcohol drinking culture, like the Jews, French, Italians etc. is much lower than from cultures that condemn alcohol consumption (most of Protestant America). If we had a balenced view of alcohol and if we had been brought up in a culture that accepted alcohol consumption but still condemned drunkenness, we probably would have no problem with using wine for the Lord's supper. Alcoholics Anonymous has changed the biblical sin of drunkenness into a disease that is 'caught' from that evil alcohol. The man who first described alcoholism, Jelineck, said that alcoholism resulted from at least 14 years of alcohol ABUSE. Alcoholics are not born according to this evidence. They work very hard to get where they are. Let's go back to Bible definitions. My father in law is not an alcoholic -- he is a drunkard. Somehow being called an alcoholic has lost the stigma that being called a drunkard had. So we dilute the word of God. In His Service Tim Sheasby |
||||||
24 | What is 'the fruit of the vine'? | Matt 26:29 | Tim Sheasby | 34641 | ||
Hi Tim. Sorry about my reflection on American culture. Since we in South Africa generally only meet American missionaries we sometimes get a distorted view of American cultural standards. Since our previous discussion I have been on leave and I took that time to do further research into alcohol and specifically the Lord's Supper. In terms of the usage of the phrase "the fruit of the vine" I found Jewish references in the Mishna and Talmud that defined this phrase to mean wine either mixed with water or not. I found references to "mustum" being preserved by sealing in a jar and dropping down a well but further research showed that the same term in latin (mustum) was used in connection with an obviously intoxicating drink. I also checked up on the research done by Jim McGuiggan in his book 'The Bible, the saint and the liquor industry' and was apalled to discover some very bad exegesis when it comes to wine in the Bible. He proposes a 2 wine view and tries to say that whenever wine is spoken well of in Scripture it is grape juice and whenever it is condemned it is wine. Without going into an argument about alcohol per se, I am concerned about the actual meaning of the term "the fruit of the vine". When I first heard the claim that it was wine only (about 20 years ago) I rejected that claim but did no further study into the matter. However, when I decided to actually investigate this for myself I found that this might actually be the correct interpretation. The more I investigated the more convinced I became to the point that I am now convicted that we should be using wine for the Lord's Supper. Because of that I have got into trouble with my local congregation because I want to be able to take wine for the Lord's Supper as I believe Jesus commanded us. My strongest oponent tried to discredit my exegesis by asking people to study a book written by one of the prominent American missionaries in our area. Several of the members who read that book and then read my exegesis came and said that according to the rules of exegesis they had no doubt that we should be using wine. Since that has happened the man has now attacked the very book he recommended. I find this an alarming sign of insincerity. I am still searching for any evidence that the phrase was used generically in Jesus time. If I can find such a reference then I will no longer have a problem using grape juice instead. This is a matter of definition of terms rather than a defence of use of alcohol against abstinence. With regard to your question '... at what point does one cross the line' I think this is a very personal thing. As a minister or pastor it is probably very difficult to instill a concept of acceptable or unacceptable consumption. This is where cultural norms have an important influence. If I teach my children about responsible drinking in my home they learn from my example. I have "alcoholic" or drunkard in-laws so this problem is VERY close to home. If I drink at all, I have a very strict personal limit and I try always to eat while I drink. I find wine enhances a meal and relaxes me but I hate feeling any loss of control or dizziness. For that reason I never drink more than 1 or 2 glasses at a time and actually only drink 1 or 2 times a month. If I had to advise anyone I would let them know that drunkenness is a sin and let them determine for themselves where that point is. I would also recommend they stop well before that point if possible. I do know the difference between someone who has drunk moderately and someone who is drunk -- from personal observation. Oops, went further than I intended! :-) In His Service Tim Sheasby |
||||||
25 | What is 'the fruit of the vine'? | Matt 26:29 | Tim Sheasby | 34781 | ||
Have you ever heard of the "French Paradox"? Some very interesting scientific research shows that moderate intake of red wine - up to about 3 glasses a day - have exceptional health benefits. People living in the south of France have fewer heart attacks and cancers, in spite of their high fat diet and heavy cigarette smoking! The key difference in their diet is the amount of red wine they consume. Furthermore they have a relatively low percentage of alcoholics compared to the north of France where more brandy is consumed. I know many alcoholics and NONE of them are wine addicts (though addiction to wine is of course possible), they are all spirits drinkers. The Russians are vodka drinkers, spirits not wine. If the problem is with certain types, or concentrations, of alcohol then we need to consider that but the key is always moderation. It is only abuse that leads to drunkenness, not use. Paul told Timothy to take a little wine for his stomach's sake. Wine is good for you in moderation. On the other hand, more than about 4 glasses of wine a day has been shown to begin to have a detrimental effect on health. It is somewhere around this point that the balance is turned. I get better rates on my life assurance if I drink between 1-2 glasses of beer or wine a day than if I abtain. Why is that? Because the insurers see me as a better health risk at that consumption level. Furthermore wine has something like 16 of the 22 essential amino acids and is rich in protein. It is possible to live on wine, bread and oil alone. According to the Jewish Rabbis -- "wine sustains". With regard to the killing of brain cells. The amount of alcohol consumed affects whether brain cells are killed or not. If you drank in moderation, ie. about 2-3 glasses of wine a day, then this will not be a problem. It is excessive alcohol consumption that kills cells. Giving my child some diluted wine in small quantities is no different than giving them a teaspoon of cough mixture -- actually the quantity of alcohol will be less. I certainly will not give them enough to "kill cells". In addition my children and I do spend time together "mellowing with Jesus". It does not have to be an either - or. My reason for teaching my children responsible alcohol consumption? Because I have seen so many children sneak out and consume alcohol anyway. My brothers and I did it but without any guidelines about what limits we should set ourselves. I think, personally, this is a better thing to teach my children. Let's not draw lines God has not drawn but rather show our children the lines He HAS drawn and help them stay within those lines. My question remains -- What was "the fruit of the vine"? All evidence I have found shows that this was an idiom for wine, and wine only, in Jesus day. If that is the case then wine is what we should be using in the Lord's Supper. (Quite aside from any other wine usage we choose to use or not use). What is the truth? John 8:32 "and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free." NASB In His Service Tim |
||||||
26 | Please clarify your statement | Matt 26:29 | Tim Sheasby | 34783 | ||
This has been thoroughly discussed, from both sides of the water baptism fence in other posts (I know because I was actively involved in those posts!). Raven sounds as if he is of the same religious background as I. I have in recent months, through this forum, personal study and other debates, had to re-evaluate MANY of my belief structures. The church I grew up in has a slogan that says "we speak where the Bible speaks and are silent where the Bible is silent". This is an admirable creed but unfortunately I have found that though we said it we didn't always do it. In trying to live by that statement or principle I have had to re-think many things. One of those is baptism and salvation. I am still studying this and other issues but my aim and purpose is always to come to a fuller knowledge of the truth. In His Service Tim Sheasby |
||||||
27 | What is 'the fruit of the vine'? | Matt 26:29 | Tim Sheasby | 34785 | ||
Science has, in fact, proven that alcohol, and specifically red wine, in moderation (1-3 glasses a day) has BENEFICIAL effects on the body! | ||||||
28 | What is 'the fruit of the vine'? | Matt 26:29 | Tim Sheasby | 34786 | ||
The wine of their day was, according to my research, very strong -- well into the high teens percentage wise and possibly higher. My friend, Evelyn Mundell, wrote to a rabbinic professor at one of the universities in Israel and was told that indeed the wine of Jesus time was in this 16-18 percent range. Although YOU have not managed to do this does not in ANY way prove it was not done. Wine making was a highly developed skill in Jesus time to the point that by Jewish oral tradition (Mishna and Talmud) a wine merchant had to be able to guarantee his wine would not go off. Furthermore, if their wine was only 1 or 2 percent, as you maintain, it would have been impossible for them to get drunk on it at all. I simply want to know what Jesus had in his cup. My evidence shows it was a naturally fermented wine. The wines of the time were indeed intoxicating and that is why God laid down laws concerning abuse of wine and other strong drinks. Let's just use for the Lord's Supper what the Lord used. Who gave us the right to change it? In His Service Tim Sheasby |
||||||
29 | What is 'the fruit of the vine'? | Matt 26:29 | Tim Sheasby | 34787 | ||
Thanks for your comments here! The question I asked was not about drinking wine from day to day but about what Jesus used, and expects us to use, for the Lord's Supper. The problem, I believe, is that man has made a law (abstain) that God does not make. When grape juice was introduced it was introduced in such a way as to imply this is what Jesus used. Since then there have been men who have tried to prove this and in order to do so have stooped to misqouting historic references and rejecting the evidence of the Bible itself to try and prove that the wine Jesus made at Cana or the fruit of the vine he used for his supper were non-alcoholic. I personally went to the local Jewish library and checked these references for myself and found that the evidence actually points to the wine being not only fermented but quite well fermented. When objectors to wine have no valid arguments left they resort to sarcasm or personal attack. I sought definition for the phrase "the fruit of the vine" and the only evidence I found said it was wine. Most of my material was originally provided by Evelyn Mundell but I confirmed everything he quoted for myself. He has a huge thesis on this subject and over half of it deals specifically with objections. Again I went through these objections and found that they had no substance. Most were purely emotional "what about the poor alcoholics". I have also recently been communicating with a man by the name of Art Thompson and a friend of his, Bob West. Art has a website with the content of his book about the Lord's Supper that bears looking at -- http://216.71.136.180/studies/supper/tlstext.htm and http://216.71.136.180/studies/supper/tlsbiblio.htm I will be posting my friend Evelyn's book on the web soon and will encourage anyone looking for scholarly research to look at that. In His Service Tim Sheasby |
||||||
30 | What is 'the fruit of the vine'? | Matt 26:29 | Tim Sheasby | 34788 | ||
Col 2:20-3:4 If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as, "Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!" (which all refer to things destined to perish with use)--in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men? These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence. Therefore if you have been raised up with Christ, keep seeking the things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your mind on the things above, not on the things that are on earth. For you have died and your life is hidden with Christ in God. When Christ, who is our life, is revealed, then you also will be revealed with Him in glory. NASB In His Service Tim Sheasby |
||||||
31 | What is 'the fruit of the vine'? | Matt 26:29 | Tim Sheasby | 35128 | ||
Tim, I will be posting the work of Evelyn Mundell on my personal website very soon. We are dealing with a major congregational problem right now and this has sadly affected our work adversely. There has been a young man sowing disention in the congregation and this has become a serious problem right now. After tonight, if the Lord wills, we will be able to post our research and demonstrate why we believe Jesus used wine for the Lord's Supper. I know that many will disagree with this research but I believe this will give a thorough and scholarly study for any that are interested. In His Service Tim Sheasby |
||||||
32 | What is 'the fruit of the vine'? | Matt 26:29 | Tim Sheasby | 35129 | ||
EdB, What is the source of your information? In His Service |
||||||
33 | What is 'the fruit of the vine'? | Matt 26:29 | Tim Sheasby | 35132 | ||
Please look at http://www.wines.com/winetrader/196hsi.html. You can also do a search on the internet for "french paradox" for other scientific evidence. Please not that the research shows that MODERATE consumption of wine WITH MEALS is the key. This is not about going out to booze it up but about wine as a dietry suplement that has proven health benefits. In His Service Tim Sheasby |
||||||
34 | What is 'the fruit of the vine'? | Matt 26:29 | Tim Sheasby | 35309 | ||
I live in the winemaking region of South Africa. I emailed the winemaker at one of our local wineries and here is the content of her reply. Dear Sir Thank you for your enquiry. The first person is correct - you can make a wine with an alcohol level of max 15 from natural grapes without adding sugar or alcohol, but it will be quite dry. The natural sugar in the grapes are converted into alcohol in the natural fermentation process. Normally the yeast on the skins ferments very quickly if not cooled and it's not a very good type of yeast to go on, as it happens so quickly that all the processes don't finish and you might still sit with sugars in the wine. (It also smells bad!) That's why we add yeast to control the whole process better. It is also possible to make a reasonably good, sweet wine naturally, but the alcohol will be very low, as I explained - grape sugars turn into alcohol - so the higher the alcohol the lower the sugar content. The only way you'll be able to get high sugar and high alcohol will be if you add either of the two or both, as in Ports and Sherries. I hope this will help you. Kind regards Carina Visser Assitant to Winemaker From a professional wine maker I find that your contention that a strong wine cannot be made from just grapes is unsubstantiated. Teaching our children is the responsibility of every parent. Just like I teach them not to over-indulge in food (gluttony) I am also going to teach them the sin and danger of overindulging in wine (alcohol). At the same time I have no right to condemn what God has not condemned. I will follow Bible guidelines rather than the abstentionist views of many modern churches. In His Service Tim Sheasby |
||||||
35 | What is 'the fruit of the vine'? | Matt 26:29 | Tim Sheasby | 226692 | ||
I return 9 years and many hours of study later to put new light on my own question. Someone once said to me "What if you have missed something? Will you change your view?" to which I answered that honesty would demand that of me. I continued to study the issue of the fruit of the vine from a linguistic point of view. I looked at how the Greek translators of the Septuagint translated the Hebrew word for fruit. I also considered the root idea in the greek word for "fruit" in the Lord's supper accounts. I finally came to the conclusion that the force of the Greek word _genema_ was to emphasise the origin of the fruit rather than the fruit itself. What was important about the fruit of the vine was where it came from rather than what it was. Jesus, in John's gospel, said "I am the vine". Since this discourse was within hours of the last supper, I thought, could there be a correlation? What is important about the blood of Christ that cleanses us from our sin is not that it is blood but that it is Christ's blood. The source is more important than the element itself. My revised view now is that in partaking the fruit of the vine, whether grape juice or wine, I remember the source – the vine. I remember where the saving blood comes from instead of the blood itself. |
||||||
36 | What is 'the fruit of the vine'? | Matt 26:29 | Tim Sheasby | 239388 | ||
It has been several years since I first posted this question and started this debate here. Now I find that in many ways I have come full circle and have a different, perhaps unique, outlook on the fruit of the vine. In my search for a good, biblical answer I found some interesting things and made an interesting connection. I decided to look at words translated "fruit" in the old and new testament and see if there were different concepts behind these roots. Words translated fruit either refer to the fruit itself, or to the origin of the fruit. In the case of the fruit of the vine, I now believe, Jesus was emphasising the **source** of the fruit rather than the **product** of the fruit. The interesting connection I made was the Jesus' discourse after the supper on the way to the garden where he said "I am the vine, and you are the branches". Having just eaten the supper where Jesus emphasises the importance of the source of the fruit of the vine, he now tells them he is the vine. Without connection to him we have no life. The fruit of the vine is defined by its source. In the same way Jesus' blood is important because it is **his** blood, not because it is merely blood. I no longer believe Jesus was trying to say that the fruit of the vine has to be wine, but that it must come from the vine. Blood of bulls and goats, though it was blood, was not the blood of Christ -- not the fruit of the vine! | ||||||
37 | Does Not Mean Baptism | John 3:5 | Tim Sheasby | 22191 | ||
The Greek grammar in this passage cannot be talking about physical birth and spiritual birth as two separate events. The grammar here clearly indicates that the birth of water and the birth of Spirit are simultaneous. It is taking it out of its original linguistic context to try to make this refer to 2 separate events. Besides if Jesus is talking to people who have already been born physically (Duh!) then why should he tell them this requirement for salvation? | ||||||
38 | is baptism important | John 3:5 | Tim Sheasby | 22197 | ||
Ephesians 4:5 says that there is ONE baptism. I believe the Bible implicitly. I believe there is only ONE baptism that we need in order to be saved and that is the one Jesus commanded (Mark 16:16 et. al). This is an immersion in water. As this passage shows the birth in water and the birth in spirit are simultaneous events (Check the Greek grammar if you don't believe me). | ||||||
39 | is baptism important | John 3:5 | Tim Sheasby | 22278 | ||
Point taken. The one Baptism I referred to earlier is the Christian baptism. The Greek word for baptize, for others reading this discussion, simply means dip or immerse. I believe the reason the King James translators simply transliterated and anglacised the word was because USAGE had changed from the original practice of immersion to that of sprinkling or pouring. If they had translated it as they should have there would not be so much confusion today about the need for baptism by immersion. |
||||||
40 | Will there be Muslims in heaven? | John 14:6 | Tim Sheasby | 22702 | ||
If they have not obeyed the gospel call of Jesus they cannot be saved. Their children who have died in innocence may be there, but I do not believe they will be. You see we all deserve condemnation and it is only the blood of Christ that can save us from our sins. Tim Sheasby |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ] Next > Last [7] >> |