Lockman - Bible questions and answers

Results 1 - 20 of 132		Pages: [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ] > Last [7] >>
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Tim Sheasby Ordered by Date
Results		Verse	Author	ID#
1	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!
2	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.
3	Early Church Fictional or Fact?	Acts 2:46	Tim Sheasby	224037
	Going to the Temple then was somewhat like going to the mall today …
4	How did Sunday worship come to be.....	Acts 20:7	Tim Sheasby	224036
	Well, they gathered to "break bread". Which has been interpreted to be for a meal or for the Lord's supper. Cannot be dogmatic about it.
5	Breaking of bread	Acts 20:7	Tim Sheasby	224035
	Once a week is tradition founded on only this one example. If, in a time of great need, a group of Christians partake the Lord's supper on, for argument's sake, a Wednesday, are they not still obeying Jesus command to take it in memory of Him? Having said that it is also true that this was a very early tradition (from other early church writings). I gladly partake once a week but object to it being legislated as the only authorized practice.
6	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
7	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
8	What is 'the fruit of the vine'?	Matt 26:29	Tim Sheasby	35129
	EdB, What is the source of your information? In His Service
9	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
10	Drawing the line	Col 2:21	Tim Sheasby	35127
	Amen. I want to re-itterate my understanding of legalism. I believe it is law dependence instead of law obedience. To try to obey God's law, and teach others to do so, is not legalism. Legalism is where I trust in my own ability to keep these laws and thus "earn" my salvation. Legalism is also where men make laws for God and bind them on others. Legalism allows no difference of opinion. Legalism does not forgive or understand different levels of understanding. Even when there are doctrine that are very clear to us there are some who just cannot seem to understand. But we get impatient. We fail to understand that when a major life belief is challenged and shown to be false it is traumatic to change. I recently went through such an experience and it took months to get over my preconceptions. However, once this process starts we often then start questioning ALL the doctrines we have ever held dear. This can either make or break a Christian's faith. In my case, Praise God, this has been cathartic for me. I am not just being blown about by every wind of doctrine but have, for the first time in 30 odd years as a Christian, become more of a Berean and now spend more time in God's word than ever. This is liberating but sometimes puts me at odds with my bretheren -- they have not come to the point of separating tradition from doctrine. I need to have the patience with them that God has had with me. In His Service Tim Sheasby
11	Drawing the line	Col 2:21	Tim Sheasby	34789
	Sin is missing the mark. That is not just falling short but also going beyond. God has given us commands and guidelines to protect us but for many men that does not seem enough. Jesus criticised the Pharisees for enforcing their traditions when they had no right to do so. I believe many Christians are guilty of the same thing. For example God's word tells us that drunkenness is a sin. He does not tell us not to drink, just to not get drunk. We however think we know better than God and so we make a law "thou shalt not drink alcohol". I have been in congregations that have "dress codes" for service. I do not mean unofficial traditions either, I mean actual documented dress codes. One man at one of these congregations said that "we have to draw the line somewhere". My reply was "God draws the lines, not us!" Another man at the same congregation said that his son-in-law had left the church because of the dress code (he didn't see why he had to wear a tie on Sunday). I grew up in an environment where we were told "thou shalt not dance", "thou shalt not drink alcohol", "thou shalt not go to movies". Where is our freedom in Christ? If God tells me to do or not to do something then I will do my best to obey, however, when a man makes that law and condemns me for disobeying his law then I have a serious problem. Let's go back to Bible principles again. Let's use God's guidelines instead of our own inferior ones. In His Service Tim Sheasby
12	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
13	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
14	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
15	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!
16	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
17	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
18	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
19	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
20	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.

Result pages: [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ] Next > Last [7] >>

Search for your Bible question and answer here: